Talk:Daimler

Disambiguation

This is no longer a disambiguation page. Eddaido (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your change here pending some explanation. Adding pictures and removing the "disambiguation" footer does not make this not a disambiguation page when its purpose is to help users navigate between different articles with similar titles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your doctrinaire decision does not fit the circumstances. Most North American (well USA) readers will now once again come to the end of that page and say to themselves. "Yeah, just as we thought, its German". Daimler is, I believe, not even a recognized surname, but a variation coined by Gottlieb Daimler for himself. Now, mind if I change it back again?

I await your thoughts with much interest. Eddaido (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I have copied the above from my talk page, since article talk pages are the best place to discuss article development.)

Yes, I'm afraid I do. :/ This page is a disambiguation page and has been since 2006. If it is not a recognized surname, it is fine to remove the template that says so, but that doesn't change its basic function. (However, it seems to be a recognized surname: [1]; [2].) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please re-consider and adjust the article so its intent is again plain. It is not a recognized surname. If you were more familiar with Ancestry you would know better the quality of their census transcriptions. None of these Daimler persons could be found by me with a listing in the current BT online telephone directory so I have removed the template.

Back to basics. The "article" or as you would have it disambiguation page as edited by you does not do the job. (And I suppose to that extent your actions relate to "article" development but this is really about what you consider disambiguation to be is it not? Eddaido (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a failure to find somebody in your telephone directory does not mean they don't exist. :) Some people don't have phones; some people have unlisted numbers. That said, if it's the telephone directory test we're doing, we've got a reliable source where The United States Patent and Trademark Offices declined to accept "Daimler" as a trademark because "the mark is primarily merely a surname", adding:

We consider first the rareness of the surname. With his first office action, the examining attorney submitted the results of a search of what he characterized as a nationwide telephone directory of names from the Lexis/Nexis database. This search returned 77 entries for the surname Daimler.

With his final office action, the examining attorney submitted the results of a search of the Lexis/Nexis EZFIND database which indicated that there were 744 entries for the surname Daimler and 100 were made of record; and the results of a search of WhitePages.com which returned 54 entries for the surname Daimler and ten were made of record.

It goes on. It does conclude that the name is relatively rare, but it's a name. Given that there's a source, I'll go ahead and put the template back. In terms of other changes to the page, while you may have removed the disambiguation templates from the page, it was never changed from its purpose as a disambiguation page. it contained the same disambiguation language mandated by the manual of style ("Daimler may refer to:") and the same lists of articles to which Daimler may refer. A disambiguation page exists to "direct[...] readers quickly to intended articles" and that's what this one is doing and has always done. My edit was solely to restore the article to its state prior to the removal of the disambiguation footer and the changes that were inconsistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, the failure to find a listing of a name in a directory for an entire country (which did not create the fashion for unlisted numbers) does mean something even if it is just that all the Daimler persons in Britain want to keep their addresses private. You try the same test on Austro-Bavarian regions, go on you owe it to yourself.

As an alien I am evidently not permitted to access the link you have placed to your "reliable source" (note I assume it does exist)

I am not a subscriber to this Lexis/Nexis database (they tell me they prefer to regard themselves as a research platform not a database). I know how important you are around here and realise you are unlikely to be trying to pull the wool over my eyes but I think I must ask for more tangible evidence than your current assertions. Eddaido (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your assumption of good faith. :) I don't think you can't see it because you're an alien; I asked a colleague (User:Okeyes (WMF), aka User:Ironholds) if he could see it, since he's in the U.K., and he says he can. For what it's worth, it's reproduced here, if that helps. I think the source is probably reliable enough to sustain the long-standing assertion here that this is a surname (although I have no idea if it's an Austro-Bavarian surname; the source doesn't discuss it), but am happy to seek a third opinion if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, I can see it :). Given that it's public domain as a USPTO publication I'm happy to email it to you if you drop me a note! Ironholds (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much more alien than a UK citizen or resident would be. I do see why you like to call up opinions to support your casual assumptions when the facts show they are wrong. In the meantime would you please just unearth evidence of private people surnamed Daimler in 1. Britain, 2. USA. 3. the Austro-Bavarian region. You won't find any. That is your problem isn't it.

When we have sorted these things out we can get back to just what it is you claim we are "disambiguating". Sincerely, Eddaido (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Civility seems to be being stretched here at this point. I've presented a reliable source indicating that this is a surname sufficient to satisfy me that the removal of the label was an error. I do not agree to removing the label in light of this. If you'd like to seek dispute resolution, I'm perfectly amenable. What it is "disambiguating" is all of the articles that are listed on the front of the page -- the things to which "Daimler may refer"....currently to the number of 8. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eddaido, as said, I am happy to email you a copy. Would this not be satisfactory? If so, can you explain why not? Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for "people called Daimler"; if only there was some network of people... Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, civility (mine) tends to melt in the face of obstinacy. No, I do not accept the sole "evidence" you have produced that Daimler is a surname as reliable, far from it. Why do you consider it adequate? Why do you not simply find some real life people? Just show they exist! Eddaido (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the note from the USPTO isn't evidence, and the multitude of LinkedIn profiles I just linked you to aren't "real people"? Ironholds (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Ironholds more than satisfied that requirement. :/ Some of them, with pictures. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the note from USPTO isn't evidence but I need to apologise, I did not notice the link to the results of the linked-in search. My very favouritest person in that so long list is Mercedes Benz Daimler; Sweet Leilani, Heavenly Flower, an extremely close second. I must say that if you set to work I am sure you will find in each case their patronymic will be little more than a century old.

So, it is possible that one of them may do or has already done something which will result in an article about her/him appearing in Wikipedia and of course that's the (American as in USA) Scouts' motto isn't it.

Moving on

(Otherwise) all the eight (five of which are superfluous) items currently on the page under discussion take their name from just the one man. I hope it is considered acceptable to continue by starting a new related section:

Well, oddly I would consider having us phone these people and presumably get a signed testament slightly over the top for validating article content, but I agree; we should move on. In the interests of this, I've taken the opportunity to identify a long list of specific people who possess the surname "Daimler", dead and alive, via Ancestry.com. These include Alec John Daimler, born in 1893, Dora Daimler, born in 1896, Isidore Daimler, 1880, Charles and Richard Daimler (1921 and 1924 respectively)....it goes on to the tune of 2,629 entries. I appreciate the quality of their transcription service is not particularly high (lord knows I've encountered massive problems myself) so you'll be pleased to know I've individually inspected the records and am happy to try and grab a copy and email it to you if you want to check for yourself. Now; strictly speaking, these people are not older than the "main" Daimler. But I think the chances of all of them, or even most of them, having adopted their name from Daimler or the car companies he created is slim. It might not be a particularly common name, but it is one that is used - and most likely independently of the most notable Daimler. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could you possibly be expected to phone these people if you could not find then in any BT phone book? Gottlieb Daimler's father was Johannes Deumler. I am confident that Ancestry's (for 1891 Filipina?) transcribers would unhesitatingly type familiar English Daimler on seeing the handwritten Deumler, Demmler, Dimmler etc etc ad almost infinitum name. I should not be concerned about date of birth if I were you but rather the date of assumption of the spelling (making a foreign name sound local, WWI phenomenon). Though that not, I think, a problem in the USA. 'bye, Eddaido (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Belabouring a point (almost) immediately below. Eddaido (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identification

This is a well-known sign. It is said to be recognised by most people.

And this is recognised by a smaller number of people (but still an awful large share of the world)

File:Daimler logo.svg putting this one, the rightful bearer of the name, right into the shade

The world is littered with their neatly branded (with LOGO) products even in the world's museums.

Is it too much to ask for the logos to be displayed on what the powers that be insist be marked as a disambiguation page? Because? Eddaido (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on disambiguation pages are here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. The specific section on images is here. If images meet those guidelines (that is, if they "aid in selecting between articles on the particular search term in question") they'd certainly be appropriate. Otherwise, they are more likely better suited to the specific articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I take it use of the logos on the page concerned meets with your approval. 01:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The other issue which applies to File:Daimler logo.svg of the ones you mentioned above is that it must comply with the policy and guidelines covering the use of non-free content. They are rather strict, and I rather doubt that the use of non-free logos on a disambiguation page would meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8, although you could ask at WP:MCQ and/or WP:NFCR and see if consensus would support such placement. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Austro-Bavarian surnames

Someone should try the telephone directory test on that. Eddaido (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belabouring a point

All births marriages and deaths in England & Wales have been required to be registered since 1 July 1837. An online index has been compiled by volunteers (they are generally locals who understand what they are transcribing). No claim of perfect accuracy is made but provision is made for notification of corrections. It is readily searchable here

Please note the details of completed coverage displayed graphically here. The database is complete up to these points in time: Births 1955, Marriages 1951, Deaths 1953. That is to say all the way from mid-1837.

The entire index contains just one record of ANY person surnamed DAIMLER: the birth of a girl named Anita DAIMLER, mother's maiden name WEST in June 1956.

Please check me.

Those people claimed to have been found by Ancestry in the 1891 census must be considered immortalised! And infertile. Eddaido (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternately, not all of them are from England and Wales :). And some of them are noted not in the birth records but in the death records, which note (with their date of death) their date of birth. So, yes, all people born in England in 1837 are registered as such. All people born elsewhere who died in England, however, would not appear in this registry, but would appear in death records. Ironholds (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me - did you not understand then you must re-read - there is not one record of a Daimler death (or marriage) in the whole of the period! The entire BMD index contains just one record of a person surnamed Daimler.

You claimed there was some enormous number of people in E & W in the 1891 census surnamed Daimler. Are you now suggesting they arrived there to be counted then left to go elsewhere?

Seriously?! Eddaido (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm suggesting the index is, in fact, wrong and limited. One of them was born in Hounslow, for example. According to the site you're providing, they've only got Hounslow birth records from 1965. Would you like me to email you a scan of the original index of death? Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, indeed, the site notes that it holds no death records in the 1970s: this gentleman died in early 1975. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern that you are so consistently wrong with your "suggestions"/claims. There is no need to email me, just copy and paste whatever here or on your own talk page for me to read, or create a link or type it out and I will go check with the original. Then I will explain your newest mistakes. cheers, Eddaido (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm out. I've spent the last week or so trying to deal with you reasonably despite you consistently assuming bad faith and generally being quite a dick about this. Even with me continually ignoring this behaviour, you see fit to continue being patronising. So, lets break things down: you're in the wrong. Whether you disagree with my evidence or not, Wikipedia's content is changed based on consensus, and honey, you don't have consensus. Make the change again? I'll have you blocked. Case closed. Now walk away and find someone else to insult until they lose it. Ironholds (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee!
What I was about to tell you is that you seem to have failed to read this before your last set of claims: (copied and pasted from above) "Please note the details of completed coverage displayed graphically here. The database is complete up to these points in time: Births 1955, Marriages 1951, Deaths 1953. That is to say all the way from mid-1837.'

"The entire index contains just one record of ANY person surnamed DAIMLER: the birth of a girl named Anita DAIMLER, mother's maiden name WEST in June 1956.

"Please check me."

Your response is to go out of the coverage period and squeal there is no coverage. See why I value your reasoning as I do? Eddaido (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My response was to point out that there is a clear use case where someone born during the coverage period, but who died after it, would not appear, and that there are people who fall into this category. In relation to your edit summary; I am editing as a volunteer, as my user page makes clear. At this point, I'm going to disengage from this discussion: it's clear you have no interest in participating in it in a way that assumes good faith. For the Nth time, I am happy to send you the death records that also display the individual's date of birth. Short of that, I have no interest in engaging, except to note that you do not have consensus to make the changes you have attempted, and that I expect you to not attempt to again. Ironholds (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be very busy. The changes you allude to I made in January 2012, I did not expect the long period of gestation of the reaction! Yes, I had thought the matter was settled. Anyway it is necessary because of the mistaken casual assumptions of readers — so like your own (assumptions). If Wikipedia readers are not going to be granted that ease and simplicity of recognition separating the products well, under current management, that's how it will be, isn't it. Eddaido (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a totally valid point if you'd actually shown them to be mistaken - or assumptions. I'm going to leave you alone now. I advise you to make it mutual. Ironholds (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps readers can make up their own minds. Why are you threatening me? Eddaido (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

origin of the surname

@Eddaido and Ironholds: I have no opinion (or knowledge, really) on the surname Daimler, but the overall format needs to be corrected (a lot of good edits were thrown out in that last revert). Disambiguation pages are not the place to introduce new material (and references) - the uniqueness of the name should be discussed in the relevant article (Gottlieb Daimler, I presume). I would suggest starting the DAB page with simply "Daimler may refer to:", which is entirely consistent with MOS:DABENTRY, and moving any and all discussion of the surname to Gottlieb Daimler. Does that seem a reasonable way forward? Leschnei (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: You've been digging. Sources seem to avoid illuminating the confusion but (in the period we are dealing with) priests, civic officials, schoolmasters, authorities wrote down the name they chose to hear. For this reason Daimler’s early personal records use different names and this is why, exasperated, he picked on Daimler.

I'm aware you have a particular interest in disambiguation pages. As you should be aware I don't think it should be a disambiguation page. I was unaware you had updated some of the links, thanks for doing that. Let's settle the main dispute first.

Can you produce any form of evidence at all of German people named Daimler before Gottlieb picked on it? That link to Ancestry is a nonsense. Eddaido (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: I haven't read through all of the arguments above because they seem to go round and round, and I'm not going to join the merry-go-round. As far as I can tell, Gottlieb was the first person to use the surname Daimler. My limited sources certainly contain nothing to refute that idea. If the surname origin is notable, then the information should be presented in Gottlieb Daimler, or in a surname page if there's actually enough information to create one. It should not be introduced in a DAB page. The biographical information in the lead is unnecessary and distracting since it's in Gottlieb Daimler (where it belongs). Leschnei (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: Why should this be a disambiguation page? All the articles spring from Gotlienb's activities. It isn't like Ford is it. Eddaido (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: In general, I feel that DAB pages, being navigation pages, should lead readers to the article that they want in the fastest way possible. I find it easiest to scan a list that is free of the distractions of extra blue links, references, and unneeded detail - those things can go in the prose articles. I don't claim that my opinion is the only valid one and that there can't be exceptions. But given the long-standing conventions for DAB pages, a non-DAB list of Gottlieb's activities should probably have a different title - something along the lines of Cultural depictions of George Washington or List of memorials to George Washington. At the very least, a title change might allow you to stop having these discussions/arguments every few years. Leschnei (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leschnei: I've gone back to your version but I've reinstated one of your deletions in a different position. I think most US English speaking people see my other concerns as an uninteresting refinement. There will be German biographies which would provide citations but I don't read German. Not a lot of people look at the page in any case. I'm keen to see this stay Daimler Company, (Jaguar, Tata) allowed Daimler-Benz AG limited use of the brand from 2007 and maybe a suitable rename for a non-DAB page might be Daimler Jaguar Tata. But I think from now on I will leave that decision and (aside from the Jaguar Tata bit) all the rest of the page to you to arrange as you see fit. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: Thanks for discussing this. Daimler Jaguar Tata seems like a reasonable title if you should decide to go that way. If you want to keep pesky editors like me from removing Daimler-Benz AG, you could try using the redirect Daimler-Benz AG. Leschnei (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]