Talk:Daimler DS420

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17–23 August 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

There are many small inaccuracies in this article.

The Regent Hotel in Hong Kong does not exist as such anymore, and they certainly do not have 22 limousines at this moment. They bought 22 limousines in total, but I doubt that they had them all together at one moment in time. Compare this to the Queen Mother: she bought five DS420s in total, but consecutively between 1970 and 1992. She never had more than one at the same time (as far as I know).

The 1984 Office Car was definitely not built for John Egan. It was an experiment that was part of the plans to enter the US market, and has only been used for promotional purposes. It did not have a fax (I remember that I had to buy a fax for my employer in 1983/1984 and it costed the equivalent of 25.000+ dollars. A fax was much rarer than a computer in those days!).

The fascia definitely resembles the ones in the Mark X and 420G very much.

The article states: "4116 were produced". According to the JDHT records, 4141 limos and 903 hearses were produced.

Hendrik-Jan Thomassen <[email protected]> DS420 owner and webmaster of www.myDS420.info 02 September 2006

Words like sluggard are not encyclopedic.--149.136.25.254 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) for Talk:Al95521[reply]

I believe the hearse used for the Queen Mother's funeral was a Daimler XJ6 conversion, not a DS420, although the mourners cars may well have been DS420s. RGCorris (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original press release has Egan associated with the mobile boardroom vehicle, but does not say he designed or intended to use it. 15:39, 19 March 2009 141.151.65.227

The original press release does NOT have Egan associated with the mobile boardroom vehicle. See the text here: http://www.myDS420.info/officecar/press1.1.l.html Several uninformed sources mix up this mobile boardroom car (the "Executive Limousine", a 1984 car) with the car built for Mr. Egan (a 1987 car). The latter had no office equipment except for a mobile telephone. Compare http://www.myDS420.info/officecar.html with http://www.myDS420.info/gallery/egan_limo/limousine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:982:C487:1:6053:E522:DA0E:9100 (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned HH's throne/toilet as the most bespoke personalized interior modification made to one of these vehicles at the factory. 15:39, 19 March 2009 141.151.65.227

Haha oh wow :D You gotta source that, because if its true (and it wouldn't surprise me), it'd be one of the strangest modifications of a British luxury car ever done. I'd love to see that in the article. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 -- talk) 00:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

"No direct replacement was produced by Jaguar, although coachbuilders have adapted the Daimler version of the XJ6." So what exactly did this look like? Was it a slightly stretched XJ6 sedan? If anyone knows of a photo it would be a good addition to the article. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did 'Daimler Motor Company Limited' even exist when this was made? That makes it look like it was an independent company using its old legal pre Jaguar name when from what I've read it was basically just a marque/brand or whatever of Jaguar after 1960 and then part of BMC/British Leyland. And also in the lead it states 'produced by The Daimler Company Limited' which is a mouthful (does 'Limited' really need to be there?) and I question its accuracy. Victoriosissimus (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see by the Companies House file (company number 00112569) it is still in existence and, it says, still active. Eddaido (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added in Jaguar Cars in parentheses in the infobox, to clarify somewhat that the car was built after Daimler became a Jaguar subsidiary. I believe that's sufficient, rather than getting further into the intricacies of Jaguar's ownership from 1968 to 1992. I don't think it's pertinent to mention the BMH --> BL --> independent --> Ford corporate ownership in any detail. CplDHicks2 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole this article is riddled with grammar and spelling errors, and a biased and unencyclopedic tone. It reads as though it was written by a "royal news" paparazzo working for a supermarket tabloid. To fix this will likely be a large undertaking, which I'm not wont to do myself. I will add the copy edit template; it shouldn't be removed until significant effort has gone into fixing the article. CplDHicks2 (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my user talk page:

Them's fight'n words. Can you stir yourself to showing the adjustments you believe needed on just one (small please) paragraph. Please. Eddaido (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CplDHicks2 (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well Eddaido, where do I start? From the very first paragraph:

The Daimler DS420, also known as simply the Daimler Limousine, is a large limousine produced by The Daimler Company Limited between 1968 and 1992. The model had been popular from the beginning with suppliers of chauffeur services, hotels, funeral services, mayors of larger cities, ministries or other state representatives abroad and ambassadors. But most important the Daimler Limousines until today serve the royal houses of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg. No other model of any make had been delivered to more reigning monarchs than the DS 420 Limousine.

"... suppliers of chauffeur services, hotels, funeral services, mayors of larger cities..."—define "larger"? Larger than what?

"... mayors of larger cities, ministries or other state representatives abroad..."—does this mean the limousines were used by mayors, ministers and "other state representatives" while they were 'abroad'? "... other state representatives abroad and ambassadors."—what's the distinction being made here? Ambassadors are "state representatives" that work "abroad". I would strike this entire sentence; all it is saying is that "typical users of limousines used these cars", which is totally unnecessary.

"But most important..."—should be the adverb, most importantly, if we were to keep this line at all. That said I don't think it should be kept because it's a subjective, "weasel-wordy" statement. Why is the use by monarchs "most important"? Who decided that?

"... the Daimler Limousines until today serve the royal houses of..."—"until today"? Awkward. "Continue to"? "Presently"?

"... the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg. No other model of any make had been delivered to more reigning monarchs than the DS 420 Limousine." Citation needed, and very "crufty" to begin with.

To me the biggest issues are the "customers" and "royal connections" sections in their entireties. First paragraph of the "customers" section:

The Daimler DS420 is widely used among the funeral trade, serving as both the executive car for mourning relatives and the hearse for the deceased, after customization to fit funeral needs. The most prominent funeral with a Daimler Hearse and a Daimler Limousine was that of Diana, the Princess of Wales in 1997. In a first act she was repatriated on 31 August by the Prince of Wales from France to RAF Northolt where her coffin changed from the BAe 146 CC2 Queens Flight airplane to the 1985 Daimler Hearse with registration B626MRK, owned by the Funeral Directors Leverton&Sons to be brought to St. James Palace for a Laying-in-State. Her two sisters followed in the 1992 Daimler Limousine of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. with the registration NGN2.

"The Daimler DS420 is widely used among the funeral trade..."—is it still widely used, considering they haven't been made in almost 30 years? Should it maybe read "was widely used"?

"...serving as both the executive car for mourning relatives and the hearse for the deceased..."—poorly worded. Executive car? I thought this was a limousine? Do we need to explain this? It's not as though any reasonable reader would assume the mourning relatives would ride in the hearse and the deceased would be in the limo, would they?

"... after customization to fit funeral needs."—why is funeral bolded?

"The most prominent funeral..."—and now it's underlined?!

"The most prominent funeral with a Daimler Hearse and a Daimler Limousine was that of Diana, the Princess of Wales in 1997."—who decided that was "most prominent"?

"In a first act she was repatriated..."—awkward phrasing. "She was repatriated"? Her body was repatriated...

"... on 31 August by the Prince of Wales from France to RAF Northolt where her coffin changed from the BAe 146 CC2 Queens Flight airplane to the 1985 Daimler Hearse with registration B626MRK..."—this is a poorly worded sentence; her coffin was an airplane that changed into a hearse? And is it relevant to the subject at hand? Why are we explaining Princess Diana's funeral arrangements to this level of absurd detail in an article about a car? Is the kind of airplane used to transport her coffin from France to the UK relevant? Is the airbase it was flown to relevant? Do we really care about the number plate of the particular car that was used as a hearse?

"...owned by the Funeral Directors Leverton&Sons..."—1) Why is "Funeral Directors" capitalized? 2) Why is name of the company italicized? 3) Surely it's "Leverton & Sons", with spaces? 4) Who cares?!

"... to be brought to St. James Palace for a Laying-in-State."—isn't is St. James's Palace? And isn't is a lying-in-state? And why the unnecessary capitalization again?

These examples are emblematic of the problems the article suffers from. CplDHicks2 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too late now but I'd have thought it'd 've been easier just to adjust it to how you want. Its clearly very personal. Eddaido (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your prickly tone it seems this is a little more personal for you. If you have a problem with the fact I've tagged this with the copy edit template you should say so rather than being passive-aggressive about it. Either way I've evinced that it does have these issues. Maybe I'll contribute to fixing it, maybe I won't; it's my prerogative, I don't have to participate on your terms. CplDHicks2 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article needs a fair amount of work. I've attempted some, but the Royal Connections section seems way more detailed than is warranted on a page about a car. I trimmed down the Customers section, removing details around Princess Diana's funeral which are irrelevant to this page. I believe the Royal Connections section could potentially be trimmed to a list of famous owners, similar to how many pages for localities have a list for famous residents. A lot of the details in this section are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a car. RCSpengler (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki: Hi, are you happy with the changes you have made? I mean do you propose to make any more? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: I'm not completely happy, but my spate of intensive editing ended yesterday. I have, in consequence, completely removed the "copy edit" template, although I didn't see the section on this page that gives a long list of improvements to be made, a list that makes clear that by consensus the article in its previous state fell short of perfection. There certainly could be more done to make the "Royal connections" section cohesive (e.g. grouping the car's history with each royal house, rather than having mentions spread out in somewhat chronological order). Since you have expressed dissatisfaction on my talk page, the question should also be asked as to whether you are happy. If not, please specify the changes that amount to introducing error. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki: Thanks, as I mentioned my concern is for the facts related directly to the vehicle. The paragraph headed Origins should not lay emphasis on Daimler the way it does. This is a Jaguar car with Daimler written on the front. I suggest you change the opening sentences to read something like this. "British Motor Corporation found it had inherited two ageing limousine models, the 6-cylinder Vanden Plas Princess and the V8 Daimler DR450. It was decided to replace them with a new vehicle developed from the largest Jaguar and give it a Daimler name and radiator. By the time the new car was in production the manufacturer was part of British Leyland."

Instead of "The Daimler Company was purchased by Jaguar Cars in 1960, which itself was bought by the British Motor Corporation (BMC) in 1966 and became part of the larger British Leyland conglomerate in 1968. BMC and Jaguar each had their own limousines before merging operations: the Vanden Plas Princess and the Daimler DR450, respectively. Rather than build two competing products, they decided to consolidate limousine production to a single model under the Daimler marque. Most of the engineering of the DS420 would be carried out by Jaguar, the new model to share parts such as the engine, gearbox, and suspension with the Jaguar 420G."

The Customers and "Royal Tradition" (!) sections are greatly overdone. They put the article right out of balance. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]