Talk:Rolls-Royce Phantom (BMW)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Article name

User:Zastavafan76 has moved the article from Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003) to New Rolls-Royce Phantom. The reason given was:
it is easier to call it new rolls royce phantom or people will think the article is only about phantoms from '03

Tho' I agree with this (as far as the '03-only issue), I think the new name is quite more misleading because people might think the name of the car actually IS New Rolls-Royce Phantom (like New Beetle).

imo it's better to use Rolls-Royce Phantom as the article's name - with a specific attribute in brackets, after 'Phantom'. e.g. something like Rolls-Royce Phantom (new). I suggest: Rolls-Royce Phantom (BMW).--BSI 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be moved to Rolls-Royce Phantom. The original Phantom was called such until the Phantom II came out.

Shouldn't it be called Phantom VII? (if I counted right) --84.115.129.76 17:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So, how many people fit in there? How many seats, etc...

Better questions: How many small countries can't afford one? When are they releasing a Pink Panther edition? And are they for sale in Smallville? Trekphiler 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Iv changed Diddy's name to Sean Combs.Adhishb 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rolls Royce also had a "Grey Goose edition". which IMHO should be added to the page.

http://www.motorauthority.com/cars/rolls-royce/rolls-royce-phantom-grey-goose-edition/ (68.221.154.176 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 05:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We need a "final solution" for the naming

I think we need to obey convention and end this current name scheme. When Ford bought Jaguar, and Jaguar came up with a new S-Type, we didn't name the article for this page "Jaguar S-Type (Ford)". It was named just "Jaguar S-Type" because that's clearly what you'd be looking for if you typed it in, and because the older car is less sought after it was stuck with "Jaguar S-Type (1963)" after the year of introduction. I've found it irritating that the page for the current Rolls must so blatantly point out BMW's controlling interest. It seems, IMO, to be a bit of BMW-POV-pushing, to name articles in this unprecedented way.

For "Rolls-Royce Phantom", a searcher would clearly be looking for the modern car. If the user was looking for an old car, s/he would have a number ready. I think it's a rare enough instance that s/he was looking for the first Phantom and presumed it didn't have a number, to not be a meaningful problem. It's ridiculous that the article "Rolls-Royce Phantom" is reserved for a disambiguation page. We can move the page for the modern car there, and recreate the old page under the name "Rolls-Royce Phantom (disambiguation)" to handle that function. Can anyone see a problem with this? Chaparral2J (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold (but amateurish) and performed the merger. This page now replicates everything that was on Rolls-Royce Phantom (BMW), while that page now redirects here but retains the talk page (because my edit was reverted when I blanked it). New Rolls-Royce Phantom and Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003) should also redirect here. The original contents of the disambiguation page at this name have been moved to Rolls-Royce Phantom (disambiguation), but when I did that it was deleted instantaneously because I hadn't yet replaced this article's contents and it was considered duplication by a bot. So the contents might not be in exactly the same format but it should convey everything that it needs to. If it doesn't, then please add onto it. I respectfully request a discussion here (as I was not given one for the past three days) before anyone who objects to this name change should revert all of it. Chaparral2J (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to revert it. Not because I object the article name (which I don't), but because the way you copy-pasted the articles from one lemma to another disrupts the whole page history of both articles. If you want articles to be moved then move them properly and don't just copy-paste them from one place to another. In this case, the best solution would be to request a move.--BSI (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize how big a cockup I'd made at the time. Also, I seem to be alone in demanding a change, so I think I'll just leave it as is. Chaparral2J (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)