Talk:Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost

"Six-Pack"
The three-by-three configuration is affectionately known as a:"six-pack" due to its shape resembling a six-pack of beer.

Goldfinger
The character of Auric Goldfuinger in the book/movie "Goldfinger" has a Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost "six-pack"

Superfluous images 1


I have removed these images because they add nothing which might further illustrate the subject of the article. Particularly unwelcome because of the most ugly and unusual unidentifiable coachwork. Why was this (clearly brand new) body built, to what purpose? Eddaido (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Now: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Superfluous images 2
This cloudy unremarkable photograph of just another car would be better displayed on the articles concerning its reputed passengers. Eddaido (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

There are currently 167 images of Silver Ghosts in Wikimedia so there is plenty of choice. Eddaido (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop Vandalism
Eddaido, plz stop deleting, That picture is there since long. If a picture is "unremarkable" in your opinion, it doesn't mean that whole community think like you, and agree to you, please do constructive edits, add something good to this page, I have reverted your edit again, if you do again, I would be left with no option but to complain the Administrator, Regards Aftab Banoori (Talk) 13:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a poor picture because the car, which is after all the subject of the article, is largely blocked by the person standing in the way. Without the person the photo would be just about acceptable although unremarkable and there are better ones in Commons.Malcolma (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a poor picture. Aquegg (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It is a poor picture. Ghostieguide (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Propeller shaft
What on earth is a "propeller shaft" (near end of History) doing on an automobile (as opposed to a boat)? I presume it's the drive shaft. Is this the appropriate contemporary British usage? Assuming it is, I won't change it, but will be WP:bold and put in a wikilink for those as confused as I. Correct me if I'm wrong. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer cardan shaft? Eddaido (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, on reflection I rather like "propeller shaft"; it has a certain antique flavour. But I will put in a link to Drive shaft. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (Which will say — or propellor shaft or cardan shaft . . . !) Happy days, it should have been linked for people in BC anyway. Eddaido (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see from the Drive shaft article that "propeller" is the proper British term (but shouldn't it be "propellor", as you spelled it?). "Cardan shaft" is a new one on me,and isn't explained in the article as far as I could see on a quick skim--do you (anyone) know where it comes from? I'm just an old word junkie.... --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From the OED "cardan shaft, a shaft having a universal joint at one end or at both ends for transmitting motion from one shaft to another not in a direct line with it. Also absol."
 * "1902  H. Sturmey in A. C. Harmsworth et al. Motors & Motor-driving (Badminton Libr. of Sports & Pastimes) 191   In order to permit of the free vertical movement of the wheels under the springs, two universal or ‘Cardan’ joints..are fitted within the length of the shaft." It is not just a driveshaft and a propellor shaft propels things doesn't it? Try a dictionary.


 * I think you will find that simply linking propellor shaft will take it to the right place. I wonder if the misspelling led someone to remove a false red link. Eddaido (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's quite specific, isn't it? I prefer 'propellor' myself, but my OED (New Oxford Dict of Eng 2nd ed) gives 'propeller' as the preferred spelling (presumably even in British usage) so stet. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've picked up a publication intended for the US market? Buy a novel and it may say published in London and New York by . . . (the same publisher) but they will be different editions for each country and not just with different spellings, often different titles and quite different usages within the text. Its why WP uses British English where appropriate. Eddaido (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

“Most valuable”?
A recent auction cash sale trumps an earlier handwave at an”insurance valuation”, unless the difference is slight enough that inflation would easily cover it. So-called “insurance valuations” are often fictive “agreed values” rather than actual appraisal, and also sometimes reflect business interests outside of the insured item’s intrinsic value. Qwirkle (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If to your mind this is so then leave it how it has been since 2007 and by all means Add a sentence saying that in recent decades other vehicles have reached higher prices at auction making the distinction quite clear. You are not into "trumping" anything in this article — are you? Why might that be? Eddaido (talk) 03:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I am confident you have followed and read all my other edits of recent months, so there is, or should be, no need to point out to you that this $35 million is for AX201, not for any old Silver Ghost. It is extremely unlikely it will ever be sold, auction or otherwise. Why do you try so hard to screw up articles when you know little or nothing of the subject? Do you have any area of personal interest and therefore knowledge? Eddaido (talk) 03:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I can see no reason why a claim that appears to be no longer true...if it were ever... needs to remain in the article. Why should it? As alluded to above, “insurance valuations” are often agreed-on fictions. Actual market sales, on the other hand, have some substance. Qwirkle (talk) 05:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes. Well, we don't all share your opinion(s). Try for consensus. Like I suggested. Eddaido (talk) 06:10, 29 February (UTC)


 * ...for, by the look of it, very, very small values of “we”. Qwirkle (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to keep this, in general, but as Qwirkle says, a handwave in 2005 to a valuation rather than an actual sale isn't enough. Cars are fetching stupendous prices - but which cars? I'm seeing 1960s Ferraris going for the peak prices. Now, is a Silver Ghost, or even the Silver Ghost, attracting the same audience?  It's a historical car with huge inherent value, but it'll never go round Goodwood like a Ferrari or Aston Martin would. Does it sell to the same people? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing is that there are persistent rumors that VW unloaded the Silver Ghost last year to an American buyer in a private sale, with a considerable chunk of cash changing hands. Still just a rumor, and the equally apocryphal stories about recent quiet Ferrari sales are even more astronomical. What’s telling is how few experts are willing to adress the “ Most valuable” question, probably because they -are- experts and realize what a can of worms it is, and how quickly today’s answer can become yesterday’s news. Qwirkle (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d also like to keep something like this that notes this -may- be the most valuable veteran auto, or may have been, but not that it is. Qwirkle (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

An Eddaido handwave (FTFY)
I'm not sure what a Qwirkle handwave means but I have replaced the quotation from the citation. Why keep removing it. The statement is perfectly correct. Maybe you could have a go at explaining your reversions. Eddaido (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To begin with, it was, of course, who used the term “handwave” about your actions; the section heading is adjusted accordingly. This is a very insubstantial cite, and giving it as much space as you would obviously prefer is undue, as mentioned in the edit summary cutting it back. Qwirkle (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all undue, it probably remains the world's most valuable car. Please just leave the statement alone. Eddaido (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence, although accurate, doesn't seem quite clear to me. It does sort of sound like "is", not "was", at least to US ears maybe. You need context to the value, but it's back then, not now. Sammy D III (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence may accurately reflect the source, but that isn’t the same this as being accurate. This was about an insurance valuation of a car that was being used as a corporate symbol. A high valuation could be partly a reflection of the impact on the brand, not the intrinsic worth of the car. Note this is discussed above and in the edit summaries. Qwirkle (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see talking about values. I know that values depend on the salesman's lies. But you know it is source here, not reality. Motor Trend must be RS, and that's what it said in 2005. If you have something different from 2005 use it. If it is clear that it was a 2005 value, not a current one, the problem is? Fix it instead of throwing sourced blurb away? Sammy D III (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the cite is too weak to make a statement about actual value, as opposed to a claim, as is discussed in the thread above. Qwirkle (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "A recent" - "appears to be no longer true" - "Cars are fetching" - "it'll (contraction of "it will") never go round". All those indicate the present to me, not 2005. If Eddaido "claims" it was in 2006 he is unsourced and maybe wrong, but it was (I assume) insured for 35 mil and Motor Trend did "note" it in 2005, as the source says. Are you saying that a fairly well sourced sentence or two is too trivial for this article?
 * Just the insurance value doesn't stand on it's own, it needs context. If you could get an Englishman (?) to write a sentence or two making the time clear then your (plural) problem would be over. Neither of your versions are right. Sammy D III (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)