Talk:Rolls-Royce Phantom VII

Article name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003). Aervanath (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present) → Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003) &mdash; A dispute over how exactly to disambiguate this one from the older ones. &mdash;harej (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * Yep. RR went with just "Phantom", though. I guess calling it a Phantom VII would alienate the under-40 crowd, people who'd never have any idea what it meant. Insert non-formatted text here

Probably go with Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-present). Having it labeled as (BMW) is about as confusing as the Bentley (VW) or Bugatti Veyron (VW) --Greasywheel


 * 2003-Present is bad name, because you have to change it anyway sometime in future just use (2003) or (2003-)  --Typ932 T&middot;C 07:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(2003-) as stated above, is just as bad for the same reason, since you will have to change it when it is discontinued sometime in the next few years. (2003) is also misleading as stated above, since it implies the car was produced for one year only, 2003. As noted in the history, it was called "2003" previously, but was previously changed to (BMW), which made even less sense as listed below. (See Below)--Greasywheel


 * This is still with bad name... see also talk in project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_18  --Typ932 T&middot;C 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This clearly needs to be standardised. Jaguar S-Type (1963) is an example of the obvious future-proof solution of using the year of launch. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There must be a platform name or development code (e.g. like BMW's E90, E38 etc.) - I believe this is the absolutely least ambigious solution. With so many knowledgeable automotive editors here, I am sure we can dig it out. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All BMW development codes can be found here. The Rolls-Royce Phantom's development code is "RR1" (scroll all the way down).--BSI (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My first hunch was that this article should be combined with all other Rolls-Royce Phantom articles as is done with other car models (see Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution and Volkswagen Jetta), but this would make the combined article very long. I agree that using a platform name would be the best solution if we were talking about a Bimmer or a Benz as their wide fan base overwhelmingly acknowledges those, but it's not practical in this case. I like the suggestion for generation numbering (e.g., VII) better, because it will make it consistent with previous generation articles for this model - see Rolls-Royce Phantom - as long as we're not making it up. I also think that limiting it to the first year of issue (2003) would be misleading, just as describing it as "BMW," "New" or "Current" would be. If we can't agree on a standard, I would recommend keeping it as "Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003-Present)" and changing it when a new generation comes out. --CFHerbert (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We have here lots of articles with the following naming system Make Model (year of introduction), I wonder why this should be different than others.... I think its very clear way to represent the model in question. Anyway the current one isnt good wonder also why the present word is with capital letter. Also this is possibly the only car article with such naming system.

--Typ932 T&middot;C 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fiat Bravo (2007)
 * Jaguar S-Type (1963)
 * Aston Martin V8 Vantage (2005)
 * Aston Martin V8 Vantage (1977)


 * Rename Rolls-Royce Phantom (2003). OSX (talk • contributions) 22:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

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)

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)


 * BMW doesn't have a place in the article's heading name. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BMW has to have a place in the article's heading, because it'is a BMW - with a RR-Label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.201.103.202 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hardtop coupe and LWB?
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)
 * Added. The Phantom LWB, too, which is 10" longer than the regular model. --RThompson82 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Safety recall" confusion?
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)

Picture of Rolls-Royce Ghost in Phantom Series II section
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)

Article name (again)
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)