Talk:SS Jaguar 100

Steadman TS100 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 September 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into SS Jaguar 100. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles 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.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Coventry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry articles

Untitled

There is a kit car company that produces very faithful replicas but which are based on the chassis and running gear of the rather more obtainable XJ6, should the article mention that? 86.154.37.35 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar SS100 → SS Jaguar 100 – The correct make and model is SS Jaguar 100, therefore, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Article titles, the article title should be SS Jaguar 100. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. The car was made by SS Cars Ltd. and was known as the SS Jaguar 100. There was never a "Jaguar SS" brand or model. The brand/marque/make/whatever was either "SS" or "SS Jaguar" before the war and "Jaguar" afterwards. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, SamBlob I think that you are right that a change is due but, as far as I can see, its not so much one of the Jaguar cars but an SS car that used a Jaguar motor. As per the reference what do you think of ~"SS 100 Jaguar Coupe"? "SS 100, Jaguar Coupe"? Greg Kaye 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Kaye: First of all, only one coupé, the prototype, was built. All the production SS Jaguar 100s were open tourers, or roadsters as Americans would call them. Second, the engine was made by the Standard Motor Company exclusively for SS Cars. There was no such entity as Jaguar at the time; SS Cars called their cars "SS Jaguar" after 1935. SS Cars became Jaguar Cars after the War and then Jaguar Cars bought the rights and tooling for Standard's six-cylinder engine for use in the "Mark IV" and Mark V saloons. The SS Jaguar 100 was not revived after the War; Jaguar developed the XK120 instead. Based on this information, which can be verified (Culshaw & Horrobin's "Standard Catalogue of British Cars" and Graham Robson's "Book of the Standard Motor Company " come to mind...), you can probably understand why I cannot accept your suggestion. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, SamBlob to tell you the truth a lot of that went right over my head. I drive a van. But even from that handicapped starting position I can see its not a jag so, AFG, I support. Greg Kaye 06:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one has opposed the move, I hereby request that this discussion be closed and the article moved as requested. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.