Talk:Rolls-Royce Phantom VII

message: :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)
thread_title: So, how many people fit in there? How many seats, etc...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: BMW doesn't have a place in the article's heading name. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We need a "final solution" for the naming

message: There's a hardtop 2-door Phantom in the works. Anybody else see it online? 
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTag9jqxYwM
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzuqszslwfk
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwLm0i9X78w
Phantom LWB..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8qWVNpnbg
The car is about 5" longer than the regular Phantom, and the extra length is added at the rear doors, I think. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. The Phantom LWB, too, which is 10" longer than the regular model. --RThompson82 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardtop coupe and LWB?

message: In October 2010, the Phantom was included in a recall involving cars with a V8 or V12 engine from BMW, because of the potential to develop a leak in the power braking system. There aren't any V8 Phantoms, though...? --RThompson82 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Safety recall" confusion?

message: There is a picture of a Rolls-Royce Ghost sedan in the Series II section of this article.  It is incorrectly labeled as "Rolls-Royce Phantom coupé (Series II)".
I removed the picture from this article, as it is a different car.  Perhaps someone else can find a correct picture of the coupe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.168.255.250 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Rolls-Royce Ghost in Phantom Series II section 

message: This article is once again misnamed. It seems to be true that the name Phantom V or Phantom VI was Rolls-Royce's official name for those generations of cars. That is, the Roman numeral was integral to the name. This can be seen in copies of the owner's manual, which refer to the car as Phantom V or Phantom VI on the title page, and were published by Rolls-Royce. The same is true of advertisements (for example: ). 
That is not true for the 2003/2004 Phantom. Rolls-Royce always called it the Phantom without any numeral. An owner's manual simply calls it Rolls-Royce Phantom. To call the article the Rolls-Royce Phantom VII is to suggest that this was the manufacturer's intent for the name, which is manifestly false. 
In a previous discussion, someone made a sneering comment about how the "under-40" readers wouldn't understand the naming convention. That is not the issue. The issue is that calling this car the Phantom VII is an ex post facto attempt to harmonize the new car's name to the tradition of the various previous Phantoms. To be blunt, calling it the Phantom VII is to cater to some online fan of the marque who thinks the car should be called that, not because it was. I share the belief that it should have been the Phantom VII, too, as a gesture of respect for the badge's storied history. However, my personal belief about a good name for a car is totally irrelevant, as is everyone else's. Wikipedia is not about imposing the preferences of fans on a manufacturer. If R-R had wanted to call it the Phantom VII, they would have. They didn't. It's not called that in the manual, or in the press releases announcing it, or in the badging on the car; I remember reading snarky magazine commentary about that at the time. It is the Rolls-Royce Phantom and nothing else. 
The solution is simple: stick with Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003), or some variant thereof. The parentheses make it clear that 2003 is an explanation, not part of the name. You could even do Rolls-Royce Phantom (7th generation) if you wanted to, because that's reasonably clear. But Phantom VII is an unacceptable name for an encyclopedia, because it's not the name of the car. Sacxpert (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name (again)