Talk:Daimler Company/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Daimler Corsica

Shouldn't the part of the Jaguar XJ page about the Daimler Corsica be included in this Daimler page instead ? Hektor 05:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

More trivia/content

I own a Daimler SP250 that was used on TV, so briefly updated the page with details of the car on the 'In The Media' section. Will also place up a photo to prove claim etc - but new to this and just going to check out how to upload the scanned photo. Polko2 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect?

I believe this is incorrect: "This is not to mention that the Queen's own car for personal use is a 2002 Daimler V8 Supercharged (based on the MkII XJ)." In fact, the Queen has a fleet of Bentleys, Rolls-Royces and Daimlers. She seems to use one of her two custom made Bentleys the most, which were presented to her to mark her Golden Jubilee in 2002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mr. Bridger (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

What is this, please?

Does anyone know what this is, please? When I uploaded it I thought it was a Daimler Majestic, but now I don't. From the wiki entries it appears it might be a Daimler Conquest saloon (Brit Eng) / sedan (US Eng). According to an accessible bit of a UK government database it is a 2433CC Daimler first registered in 1955. I'm not sure how much confidence you should have in information published from a UK government database, but .... it's there.

Thank you for any knowledge sharing. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a Daimler Conquest. Malcolma (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malcolm. I don't suppose you can tell, simply by looking at it, whether it's a Conquest Century or ... a Conquest. Apart from (presumably) retrofitted indicators this one looks pretty carefully original. Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know there were no external differences. Malcolma (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards. Charles01 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In Jan 2009 the image has been renamed and I have accordingly replaced the image which originally accompanied this discussion with its replacement (which is the same image with a better name). Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Daimler Super Eight

According to the Jaguar XJ article the Daimler name was dropped when the X350 was facelifted in 2007; is this correct or was there a Daimler version available until 2009 when the new-shape Jaguar XJ was launched ? RGCorris (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Because it seems the owners are keen to keep the brand name alive - must be very valuable - I have changed Successor so it does not imply products do not appear from time to time with this brand-name on them.
I guess that comment could go instead above where it is now and alongside "Fate" and then Successor is really those products bearing the Daimler name as mentioned in the sentence before this.
Is this box trying to cover the business or its product? I admit to being confused on that score.

The owners (Parent) are without doubt Tata Group and they operate from India - in the lower box, "country" applies to the owner - does it not?

Ford PAG as a previous owner because it ties to Ford's particular grouping of this type of product as well as still linking directly to Ford, a better known brand than Jaguar or Tata.

If what I have done is not recognised to be an improvement can we first discuss more amendments to it here?

Why is it the upper info box refuses to show the listed subsidiaries? Can it be fixed - Please! Eddaido (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DeFacto for making the subsidiaries show. Is it correct that the subject of this article is "defunct"? Eddaido (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

02954323 DAIMLER LIMITED
05381148 DAIMLER & LANCHESTER LIMITED
01354709 DAIMLER AND LANCHESTER OWNERS' CLUB LIMITED(THE)
03323663 DAIMLER ESTATES LTD
03180691 DAIMLER FINANCIAL SERVICES UK (TRUSTEES) LIMITED
02556005 DAIMLER FLEETBOARD UK LIMITED
03534682 DAIMLER FLEET MANAGEMENT UK LIMITED
05379712 DAIMLER GREEN CARE HOME LIMITED
05586393 DAIMLER GREEN COMMUNITY RECREATION TRUST LIMITED
00268439 DAIMLER HIRE LIMITED
03232980 D DAIMLER HIRE LIMOUSINE SERVICE LIMITED Dissolved
03510012 DAIMLER INSURANCE SERVICES UK LIMITED
00112569 THE DAIMLER MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED
05207700 DAIMLER SQUARE (COVENTRY) MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED
00322903 DAIMLER TRANSPORT VEHICLES LTD
01140745 DAIMLER UK PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
05328119 D DAIMLER UK FINANCE LIMITED Dissolved
04293667 DAIMLER UK SHARE TRUSTEE LIMITED
01630664 DAIMLER UK TRUSTEES LIMITED

RGCorris (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy and paste from Companies House website, 22 March 2011. data available free of charge. my notes in italics:

Name & Registered Office:
'THE DAIMLER MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED'
ABBEY ROAD
WHITLEY
COVENTRY
CV3 4LF
Company No. 00112569
'Status: Active'
Date of Incorporation: 07/11/1910 [refer: Motor Trade Amalgamation. The Times, Monday, Sep 26, 1910; pg. 6; Issue 39387]
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
7499 - Non-trading company
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2009 (DORMANT) [but Active - see above???]
Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2011
Last Return Made Up To: 01/05/2010
Next Return Due: 29/05/2011
Last Members List: 01/05/2010
Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
20/12/1988 DAIMLER COMPANY LIMITED(THE) [a technicality about the The?]
03/01/1996 T.C. LAVIN LIMITED [???]

Best I leave it to someone else to interpret this. Best, Eddaido (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was the Daimler marque ever owned by BMC?

Eddaido, earlier you restored BMC as a previous owner of the Daimler brand. According to the BMC and BMH articles, BMH was formed by the merger of Jaguar Cars (at the time the owners of the Daimler brand) and BMC. That would suggest that BMC never owned the Daimler brand, but that it was brought into the newly formed BMH company by Jaguar. Do you have information or reliable sources to support the view that BMC did own the brand before BMH was created? -- de Facto (talk). 20:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits by Eddaido regarding ownership, marque etc

It's very clear to me that Eddaido is wholly good faith and very committed to improving this article but I must say that I do find their reverting style somewhat frustrating.

There are a few issues here. Even though the Daimler Motor Company technically still exists as a company registered at Companies House, it is clear that the company does not trade, does not form a subsidiary of Tata Motors or Jaguar Land Rover with its own mangement etc, and does not own any assets. Daimler is now a brand owned by Tata, but that it not the same as Daimler forming a division, subsidiary or business unit of any kind within Tata. It currently does not, so far as I am aware, even have any products.

Beyond this there is a broader need for a clear distinction to be made in the article between the original company, which once owned its own assets, traded and owned the Daimler marque, with the Daimler marque itself. The current lead completely fails to address this. I feel that the issue would be best addressed through a split into two articles, one for the Daimler Motor Company which ended in 1910, with the end of the company's indepedence, and another for the Daimler marque under all owners. The current lead is simply not right though.

Marque is a very commonly used name for an automotive brand, including in Wikipedia. I am puzzled at to why this has been reverted back to brand.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peer reviewer program results

Having gone through this incredibly stuffy yet not very formal article, and having found an automatic peer review program (West Indian convention: English spelling of "programme" used except when referring to computer programs, where the American spelling is used), I ran the article through the program and got this:

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]

Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 litre, use 5 litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 litre.^[?]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]

Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]

This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]

There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
it has been

might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]

Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), counsellor (B) (American: counselor), programme (B) (American: program ).

Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

I hope editors of this article will find this information useful.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Daimler DS420.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Daimler DS420.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

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

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Daimler DS420.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-trading: The company or the shares?

"...though it is currently marked 'non-trading'."

Could it be that it is marked "non-trading" because its shares are not being traded?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research

In the article, it is claimed that the list of cars given in Rolls-Royce Phantom IV#List of the 18 units "shows where what should have been Daimler repeat-orders went to." To an extent this might be true, since Daimler held the Royal Warrant to supply the British Monarchy, and the Aga Khan and the Spanish Monarchy had also bought Daimlers (although Alfonso XIII of Spain was a car enthusiast and had several cars, including Hispano-Suizas), but nowhere in the article does it state that any of the Royal Families of Iran (purchasers of 4AF6 and 4CS6), Iraq (purchasers of 4BP1, 4BP3), Saudi Arabia (purchasers of 4AF22), or Kuwait (purchasers of 4AF8, 4CS2, and 4CS4) had ever bought a Daimler. It also does not state in the article that Francisco Franco (purchaser of 4AF14, 4AF16, and 4AF18), or anyone else in power during Spain's interregnum, had ever ordered cars from Daimler. With no mention, much less evidence, that any of these had ever bought Daimlers before, and with 4AF4 used internally by Rolls-Royce and 4AF12 going to Rolls-Royce director Ernest Hives, only six of the eighteen Phantom IVs built can be said to go to ex-Daimler customers. The idea that the list of Phantom IV is a list of ex-Daimler customers is therefore invalid and the statement of that idea shall be removed from the article again. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lady Docker's Daimlers

Blue Clover and Golden Zebra are featured in the article. Are the whereabouts of her other Daimlers known? --76.115.67.114 (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect those two cars have been restored from (virtual) wrecks (certainly some of the exotic finishes are no longer there) and it is probable the other cars lived normal lives for that kind of car and in due course went down the same road without becoming someone's rescue project. Eddaido (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

21st century North American Daimler Trucks

It seems (and I may be wrong) that since 2008 what were formerly Mercedes-Benz trucks are now in USA sold under the brand name Daimler.

This suggests that (in spite of other announcements which would seem to rule it out) Ford sold Daimler AG (and not Tata) certain rights to the Daimler name previously owned by Jaguar. Can anyone show mention of or speculation about these arrangements in print? Eddaido (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of the Daimler marque (!) gracing any trucks in the USA. I believed that any MB-branded trucks were changed to Freightliner, one of Daimler's other truck brands (and familiar to Americans). Weasley one (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Daimler Company

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Daimler Company's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BES":

From Laurence Pomeroy: Brian E Smith, The Daimler Tradition, Transport Bookman, Isleworth, 1980 ISBN 0851840140
From Daimler Majestic Major: Brian E Smith The Daimler Tradition, Transport Bookman, Isleworth 1980. ISBN 085184 014 0

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Simple Computer Program, you have raised a curly one here. Myself I think they should be identical, I mean without spaces. I used to insert the spaces then found that when it was saved those spaces disappeared. Perhaps I added the ref to Daimler Majestic Major before WP was given to understand what was going on? Please tell me how I can best help (I've fixed Daimler Majestic Major and I'm sorry for making a nuisance). With kind regards, happily parented (when it mattered), Sentient Eddaido (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC).

Vandalism?

I'm a bit concerned this section has no references:

"In the commodities boom caused by the 1950 Korean War Australasian woolgrowers reported the new electrically operated limousine-division to be 'just the thing' if over-heated sheepdogs licked the back of a driver's ears."

It sounds a bit...odd. Is this a very well disguised attempt at vandalism or was this report actually made? Any references? Mongoosander (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Body electric

I've heard Daimler in 1946 introduced the first electric side windows in cars--except, I can't find which Daimler. Anybody know? Trekphiler 10:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi! You're right, of course, it was the 1946 Daimler Thirty-Six DE 36. CyanIsland (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Browns Lane

The article suggests that acquiring Browns Lane was one of the reasons for Jaguar taking over Daimler. However I believe that Jaguar had had the use of Browns lane since the early 1950s and it was the Radford plant that they wanted for expansion in 1960, which was then Daimler's primary manufacturing base. RGCorris (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't answer that as I no longer have access to the source or what I believe was the source. I will try to remember this matter if I manage to get that big book back. I think I thought Brown's Lane having been a shadow factory was relatively new. And of course ownership is always more secure than lease? Eddaido (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed structure

I hereby propose the following structure for the article:

1. Lead section, to be constructed as per WP:LEAD at the end of the restructuring, to summarize the article.

2. "Origin", regarding the foundations built by F. R. Simms

3. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company from 1896 to 1910 (how can this section be titled without including the word "Daimler" in the section title?)

4. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under BSA from 1910 to 1960, with subsections about (a) World War I, (b) the inter-war period, (c) World War II, (d) the postwar Docker era, and (e) the Sangster/Turner years.

5. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under Jaguar Cars from 1960 to 1966

6. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under BMH from 1966-1968 and under British Leyland and its successors from 1968 to 1984

7. Section on the history of the Daimler Company under Jaguar Cars from 1984 to 1989, including the renaming to Daimler Motor Company that allegedly took place in December 1988 (any sources to be cited, anyone?)

8. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company under the Ford Motor Company from 1989 to 2008, including the revival model proposed under Ford ownership

9. Section on the history of the Daimler Motor Company under the Tata Motor Company from 2008 to the present, including the revival model proposed under Tata ownership

10. "Other concerns of similar name", basically as it exists at this time, except later in the article

11. Section on the details of the Royal Warrant, how it was obtained, maintained, and lost

12. "Current status"

13. "List of Daimler cars"

...closing with the usual last sections as per WP:FOOTERS

Any objections?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I made a small start today with a little copy editing. It really does need a good spring clean! Warren (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Eel Pie island.

Just noticed this crazy bit among the references as I flashed past.

*The Electrical Journal (D. B. Adams) 29: 438 http://books.google.com.jm/books?ei=IFHBUZvZKYP48wT_l4D4BQ&id=ymZOAQAAIAAJ&dq=Pears+electric+motor+%22eel+pie+island%22&q=Pears+%22eel+pie+island%22#search_anchor |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 2013-06-19. "THAMES ELECTRIC AND STEAM LAUNCH COMPANY—Mr. Andrew Pears has taken over the Electric and Steam Launch Buildings and Public Charging Station, now in course of construction upon Eel Pie Island, Twickenham, formerly the property of Mr. W. S. Sargeant, of Strand-on-the-Green, Chiswick and Twickenham, and the firm in future will be worked as the "Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company"."*The Electrical Review (Electrical review) 36: 714. 1895 http://books.google.com.jm/books?id=p-VQAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Thames+Electric+and+Steam+Launch+Company%22+Pears&dq=%22Thames+Electric+and+Steam+Launch+Company%22+Pears&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xFTBUY-sLInU8wSPpICwBw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA |url= missing title (help). Retrieved 2013-06-19. "Business Announcement, — A circular signed "Andrew Pears " states that from June 1st the works of the Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company, of Twickenham, are under new management, and all communications should be addressed to the company and not to employis (sic)."

It would be best if the reference to the works there was simply reverted to what I originally wrote. Subsequent editors are, of course, quite unaware that Mr Andrew Pears was just the enormously rich owner of Pears Soap though it has been pointed out by me a number of times but disregarded. Eddaido (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the part of the article that refers to the references mentioned:

"Simms later established works premises at Eel Pie Island on the Thames where the Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company, owned by Andrew Pears of Pears Soap fame, had been making electrically-powered motor launches."

Based on the references stated, how is this incorrect? Further, how can the later editors have been "unaware" of Andrew Pears connection to Pears Soap when it is stated in the article?

Are there any references stating that the Thames Electric and Steam Launch Company was a subsidiary of Pears Soap? Are there any references stating that Pears Soap made electric motors on Eel Pie Island? If not, then there should be no reversions to texts that state this without references.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The strangeness of this article, part 1

Some of these have since been corrected, but...

~~Microscopic lead section, considering the tons of text it is supposed to summarize. It is interesting to note that the lead section does not mention the Royal Warrant, BSA, or Jaguar.~~ – Lead expanded. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is a list of the people important to the history of Daimler necessary? Won't they and their relevance to the subject all be mentioned in the article at the appropriate time? What is the need for a dramatis personæ? – List removed. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
What relevance does the origin of a man Gottleib Daimler once worked for in England have to do with the subject of the article? It is unnecessary trivia of the most arcane kind. The same holds for Simms' wife (at the time) being Austrian.
~~There are two sentences about a motor launch enterprise with a sentence about Simms' headquarters and work premises unceremoniously jammed in between.~~ – Order repaired. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
What was being made on the premises of Eel Pie Island before Simms works premises was there is not important, unless there was some lingering residue of the previous product that affected Simms' product. – One launch maintenance works was supplanted by another. ~~Soap was not made there~~Electric motors were installed into launches there, but not necessarily made there. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
What? The section "Foundation of the Coventry business 1896" goes through the existence of DMG and the fact that DMG has not made a "Daimler" car since 1908, the origins of F.R. Simms and his friendship with Gottlieb Daimler, his obtaining and use of Daimler's patents in the British Empire, his decision to start building cars in Britain, his business negotiations with Lawson and DMG including his reuniting of Daimler and Maybach with DMG, the sale of Simms' Daimler Motor Syndicate to Lawson's Daimler Motor Company, and another reminder that DMG and its successors and Austro-Daimler are completely unrelated to the Daimler Company. The next section, Daimler, history of the British business 1896–1960, then goes back to 1891! Why? – Order repaired. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
~~What Undecimus Stratton's name means or what his friends called him is irrelevant to the topic.~~ – Moved to article on Mr. Stratton. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
~~"Each morning at eleven a butler in morning suit brought oysters and champagne to the directors’ rooms." Why is this relevant?~~ – It wasn't. It wasn't even about Daimler's directors; it was about the directors of Stratton-Instone. Removed. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
~~"His successors and Instone bought out Daimler in 1930 and renamed the business Stratstone Limited." What? Didn't BSA buy Daimler in 1910 and sell it to Jaguar in 1960?~~ – Reworded to make sense. They didn't buy Daimler; they bought Daimler's share in Stratton-Instone. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the end. This is not even the end of the beginning. There is just so much to plough through!

Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewer program results, take 2

The peer reviewer program, which might be going away in September, now has this to say about this article:

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 Litre, use 5 Litre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 Litre.^[?]

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?] The last remaining use of "th" in a date is in a quote, which should not be altered to match the MoS. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]

This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.^[?]

~~There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.~~
~~it has been~~

~~might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[?]~~ Weasel words removed. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armour (B) (American: armor), aluminium (B) (American: aluminum), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization). This one was my fault, and I have corrected it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

I will look into these suggestions next. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive proposal

I hereby propose that we archive the talk page. I further propose that we use an automated archiving system similar to the one in use at Talk:Straight-twin engine. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No reply, so I've done it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daimler Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529040058/http://www.davidmarksgarages.net:80/daimler%20corsica%20part%201.htm to http://www.davidmarksgarages.net/daimler%20corsica%20part%201.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 05:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Brand ownership

As with the Jaguar Cars article, I've tried to align the brand ownership content (prose and infobox) with what I have been able to glean from the UK trademark registry. The records are very complete for Daimler, so some interpolation based on what I found out about Jaguar might have crept in, but that website is surely the most reliable source available for this information. Any ideas about how this information might be improved upon and made more accurate or reflective of the reality would be appreciated. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Overgrown hatnote

@Eddaido: a hatnote is not a place to explain complex company histories; articles and disambiguation pages are. Please have a look at WP:1HAT. The main question to consider when adding hatnotes is: how likely is it that readers searching for other Daimler-related articles will end up here by mistake? Arguably, not very likely, since both Daimler and the more common Daimler-Benz already take you to the relevant pages.
Chances are that readers landing on Daimler Company did indeed want to read this article, and having to go through a three-line hatnote simply to learn that they have found the right article is a waste of their time. Check out the hatnote at Daimler-Benz; that's how a sensible hatnote would be. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Very sorry about this but my experience with Wikipedia and this particular article over quite some years (I began editing it because this article then said it was a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz) would indicate your personal opinion is uncommon. Chances are that the reader wanted what was once called Daimler-Benz and now Daimler AG or Daimler Company to the uninitiated.

To indicate how unusual your concern is please know that that hatnote has been there unquestioned since 5 September 2011. Please leave it be. Eddaido (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the entries immediately above yours? Eddaido (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Eddaido, it's not my personal opinion; it's a Wikipedia guideline: "hatnotes should generally be as concise as possible. Long explanations are generally discouraged; the article's lead text, not the hatnote, should explain what the article is about. Sorry, but unless you have a good reason to contravene an established guideline, that hatnote is going to get a good trim (and no, having remained unkempt since 2011 is not a good reason). The mention of Gottlieb Daimler in the lead should be expanded, and his relationship with the various Daimler-named companies clarified there, rather than left to an obscure hatnote. Don't worry, all the links to Daimler-Benz, Daimler (disambiguation) etc. are not going to disappear; they are going to be placed more meaningfully in the opening lines. --Deeday-UK (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please just leave it alone. Eddaido (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to suggest an alternative draft it and put it on here. Eddaido (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Eddaido, I won't leave this article alone because I want to improve it. But you were right: the cut I first proposed was a bit too drastic. Now the hatnote contains all the main Daimler-related links, but in a concise form (and consistent with the hatnotes at Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG), while in the opening lines it is immediately clarified the relationship between The Daimler Company, Gottlieb Daimler and the German businesses. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Improvement" suggested by the above editor which displays as This article is about the British automobile manufacturer. For the German manufacturer, see Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG. For other uses, see Daimler (disambiguation).

I am not responsible for the hatnote as it stands and have no "ownership" of it. You may be unaware but if you look at the talk page archives all this article has been much discussed and at length.

It is necessary, in fact most important - as indicated above - to tell the casual reader this article is not about what he/she most likely / almost certainly thinks its about. The Deeday proposed hatnote version refers to the "British automobile manufacturer" which may well have been a part of Daimler-Benz. Deeday, it was not so. It is necessary for the hatnote to be as it is. Have another try recasting it if you want to then If you wish to discuss it further please do it here on this talk page. Eddaido (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Eddaido that the various automotive uses of the Daimler name are not well understood, and the particular use here may be particularly problematic, and so believe too that the hatnote should be used to fully and clearly distinguished it from the other related uses. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Eddaido, it is obvious that a British manufacturer is separate from a German manufacturer, otherwise the hatnote would read "This article is about the British division of the German manufacturer", or something like that (see for example the hatnote at Daimler AG: "This article is about the German automobile manufacturer. For the British automobile manufacturer, see Daimler Company"). In any case, if we want to make it abundantly clear, how about:

"This article is about the British automobile manufacturer licensee of the Daimler brand. For the German manufacturer, see Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG. For other uses, see Daimler (disambiguation)."

The problem with the current hatnote is that it states the obvious (that the 'Daimler Company' article is about the Daimler Company) and then tries to explain the whole genealogy of the Daimler businesses, which is exactly what the guidelines say should be avoided. The result is a long-winded distraction that detracts from the quality of the article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest you take your very personal concern about this hatnote to a mediator or dispute resolution. Eddaido (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Story

@Deeday-UK: Entirely from my memory. A boy grew up in Germany. his name was something like Demler. He became a good engineer, he changed his name to Daimler. It was unique, no-one else anywhere used that name. He was a very good engineer and not interested enough in money and stuff like that. He let other people use his name, Daimler, when they were involved in business with him. After a time they all got worried about the use of his name and they settled it this way:

Daimler Company for a group of English businessmen
Daimler Motors Company for a group of German businessmen who were not allowed to name their product Daimler and used Mercedes instead
Austro-Daimler you'll have to guess

Daimler Motors Company merged with Benz and they named themselves Daimler-Benz and made Mercedes-Benz products

Tata An Indian company, distributor of Mercedes-Benz in their part of the world bought Jaguar (and Daimler Company) from Ford and sold Daimler-Benz some of the rights to the use of the name Daimler. We don't know exactly what or how much or anything.

Does this make it clearer? Its just on 3 am here. Eddaido (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

More

@Deeday-UK: While I wind down. What's RFC is it a flying corps, royal? Eddaido (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Eddaido: [2] There does seem to be some serious issues with the hatnote and misleading to readers with no prior knowledge on the subject, but correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation. As it stands:

This article is about the Daimler brand and its owner the British automobile manufacturer the Daimler Company Limited. For other uses derived from the German engineer and inventor Gottlieb Daimler, see Daimler (disambiguation) For the two direct descendants of Daimler's original enterprise, see Daimler-Benz (and its successor Daimler AG) and Austro-Daimler.

1. Isn't Austro-Damiler older than Daimler-Benz, so isn't it better to list it before the latter?

Why do you say that?

2. It mentions "Daimler's original enterprise" but doesn't specify what that is (i.e. DMG) which makes the reader assume it's the one we are reading right here (i.e. Daimler Company Ltd, UK).

It is not DMG. Please read the article and re-consider your thought.

3. The hatnote begins with "Daimler brand and its owner the British automobile manufacturer" but this is also misleading because the 'Daimler brand' name is separately owned by both Daimler Company (Jaguar) and by Daimler AG, that's something even mentioned in the footnote in the latter's article.

Certain rights have been sold by Daimler Company to Daimler AG, what those rights are has not been made public (so far as I know - please correct me if I have that wrong)

Welcome to hearing your thoughts. DA1 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have interposed my responses. You are welcome to continue but do not rely on other Wikipedia articles for your 'thoughts' that the hatnote is wrong or misleading. Perhaps you could lay out your reasons for your opinions with citations and we could work on from that.

While I'm at it here from the archives of this talk page my response of 12 March 2018 to similar proposals: "I am not responsible for the hatnote as it stands and have no "ownership" of it. You may be unaware but if you look at the talk page archives all this article has been much discussed and at length." Eddaido (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Eddaido: as you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks that the hatnote as it currently stands is a long-winded mess. For a start, it links both to Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG, which are the same article. But above all, it tries to do what hatnotes are not supposed to do, that is explaining all the intricacies of the Daimler genealogy; that's for the dab page and the articles themselves.

Your answer above ("It is not DMG. Please read the article and re-consider your thought") is illuminating: if someone has to read the article to understand the hatnote, then something is seriously wrong there. I suggest you come up with some constructive ideas on how to improve the hatnote instead of rejecting even the slightest amendment. Otherwise this matter will end up at RfC and will attract a lot more attention than you would like. --Deeday-UK (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Migosh aerospace and software, I read no further. I will be very pleased to see the hatnote get plenty of attention but I Very much doubt it will. So long as revisionists come up with an accurate answer that sorts out the confusions of befuddled non-readers that will be great. But a warning. "A little learning is a dangerous thing . . ."

Watching ! Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

==Story==

@Deeday-UK: Entirely from my memory. A boy grew up in Germany. his name was something like Demler. He became a good engineer, he changed his name to Daimler. It was unique, no-one else anywhere used that name. He was a very good engineer and not interested enough in money and stuff like that. He let other people use his name, Daimler, when they were involved in business with him. After a time they all got worried about the use of his name and they settled it this way:

Daimler Company for a group of English businessmen
Daimler Motors Company for a group of German businessmen who were not allowed to name their product Daimler and used Mercedes instead
Austro-Daimler you'll have to guess

Daimler Motors Company merged with Benz and they named themselves Daimler-Benz and made Mercedes-Benz products

Tata An Indian company, distributor of Mercedes-Benz in their part of the world bought Jaguar (and Daimler Company) from Ford and sold Daimler-Benz some of the rights to the use of the name Daimler. We don't know exactly what or how much or anything.

Does this make it clearer? Its just on 3 am here. Eddaido (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

==More==

@Deeday-UK: While I wind down. What's RFC is it a flying corps, royal? Eddaido (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree that the duplicated link to Daimler-Benz and Daimler AG should be corrected? --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK: It does seem the links must have been damaged. Why not go back to when they were first made to find that editor's intention. I should think they were directed to specific parts of the article or articles. We need to know what they were. Interested to see what you find. regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Eddaido: 1. Austro-Daimler is listed as being founded in 1899 (located in Wiener-Neustadt, as a subsidiary of DMG), while Daimler-Benz is listed as being founded in 1926. Would only make sense to list "the two direct descendants of Daimler's original enterprise" in chronological order.

2. DMG or not, it doesn't specify what that "original enterprise" is, and makes it seem that it is the British-based Daimler that was the original.

3. Whether it's Daimler UK (Jaguar) re-licensing the name back to Daimler AG, or them both independently owning it, the point remains the same, that is, the hatnote's wording is confusing to new readers and presumes that Daimler UK is the sole owner of the "Daimler brand"; which you note that the exact terms are not publicly known. DA1 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@DA1: I recognise you do not want to read the article. I do not recognise / understand why you don't read this correspondence here and understand you've got the wrong end of a stick or something. Eddaido (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

You're not even trying to have a proper dialog now. You pointed out some flaws about my OP assertion, and I pointed why I made the assertions that I did. I don't want to get sidetracked to another part of the broader discussion you're having with someone else before I have my own points addressed first. DA1 (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm the one that's hurt because you can't be bothered to try to understand what I write. Forget the ideas you came along with and just accept that Daimler is English and Mercedes German. Dates don't come into it. Mercedes has recently bought from the Indian-owned English company some rights to use Daimler. The agreement between the parties is what counts. Dates, which worries you, don't. Eddaido (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@DA1 and Deeday-UK: I've just amended the hatnote and the links in the hatnote. Please tell me what you think. We need to make progress. For a splendid piece of illegit editorialising read Gottlieb Daimler#"Pact with the devil" Eddaido (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, we need to put some clarity here. Let's start with what a dab hatnote on this article should achieve. It should:

Clarify that this article is about a British company.
Point the reader to the Daimler disambiguation page in case they were looking for other related companies.
Given the high chance of confusion with present-day's well known German company Daimler AG, for convenience it should mention that as well, even if it's already mentioned at the Daimler dab page.

Instead, what a hatnote should not attempt to do is:

Explain where the Daimler brand comes from or what happened to it (which falls foul of WP:RELATED) – Therefore, it should not mention Gottlieb Daimler. Readers searching for Gottlieb Daimler will likely put his name or just 'Daimler' in the search box and will be taken straight to the correct article or to the dab page. They are unlikely to end up here at Daimler Company by mistake, so it's pointless for the hatnote to link to Gottlieb Daimler. Of course we need to explain what Gottlieb Daimler has to do with all this, but we do that in the article and on the dab page, not in the hatnote.
List all other companies related to Daimler – Yes, they could all in theory be confused with Daimler Company, but it's just too many of them (DMG, DMFG, Austro-Daimler, Daimler Trucks etc.) and it would be unwieldy, so they are best left to the Daimler dab page.

So this could be a good start, for example:

This article is about the British automobile manufacturer. For the German multinational automotive group, see Daimler AG. For other Daimler companies, see Daimler (disambiguation).

--Deeday-UK (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Daimler A G is multinational? In what respect? (I think you must have picked that up from the out-dated dab page) Otherwise I see no big problem though it would not be my preferred solution. I have different fish to fry. What does your friend DA1 think? Eddaido (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I've taken it straight from the Daimler AG article. If that's incorrect, feel free to edit the article, of course. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, sounds like user DA1 is more concerned about having their "own points addressed first" than discussing the draft proposal. Eddaido, feel free to suggest further changes, but we seem to agree that the draft could be good enough to go live. By the way, the hatnote at Daimler AG needs some tweaking too, but in the opposite sense: it should be expanded to include a link to the Daimler dab page. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead as you've outlined. Eddaido (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The hatnote

Why has the previous discussion been zapped into history
Why did it end up with the aggrandisement of Daimler-Benz at the expense of Daimler?

Eddaido (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Daimler disambiguation link

The link in the first line of this article: "For the disambiguation of other Daimlers, see Daimler..." actually links to a disambiguation of "see", not "daimler". I would make this correcting edit myself, but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.88.129 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed. Eddaido (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

I re-hashed the following from 63.159.194.142

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

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

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

Also - History of German daimler anyone? - British bus info? The logo's the same as the Jaguars, but I know no more. Andy G 19:38, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians,

I will mark this page as an {auto-stub} because it does not help avoid confusion. Except their inception, there is nothing in common between German Daimler company, founded by Gottlieb Daimler in 1890 (sometimes called Canstatt-Daimler) and the British Daimler company (founded by British importer of German cars, H. J. Lawson of Coventry in 1896 using Daimler's name by permission of the German firm). First British Daimler cars were based on the contemporary French Panhard and were not influenced by the German Daimler firm which made the immortal Mercedes. By the way, German Daimler stopped manufacturing cars in 1902. Afterwards, Austro-Daimler of Austria was run by Gottlieb Daimler's son, Paul. So, the further histories of the German, Austrian and British Daimler firms are not connected at all. I propose to make a "diasmbiguation page to reveal what I have told before. What do you think?

--Millisits 15:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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