This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||
|
Criteria for inclusion need to be established. For example, for what reason is Ford omitted? Many were built here. Is the intention to represent British corporate ownership; British construction; British sales; British public perception? The template fails to be correct or complete (yet) on any and all of these measures.
Also, before it is transcluded all over the place, I believe it should be renamed. Automobile is valid British English, but is neither common nor comfortable, and indeed includes buses and trucks in its definition, unlike this template (probably! See above.) This discussion has been held in the past in the Wikiproject Automobiles discussions... "car industry" is much preferred. If trucks are to be included, then "motor vehicle industry". – Kieran T ( talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to add Ford, a company that although a major British presence never as far as I am aware had British ownership (I don't think Ford of Britain had a UK stock listing), then there is a case for adding Honda, Nissan, BMW and Toyota who are, after all, the major manufacturers today. This could then be followed by SAIC.
We also must not forget Clyno who, although forgotten today, were in the mid 1920s Britain's third largest maker turning out over 40,000 cars and so dwarfing the likes of Bristol, TVR and Morgan. Does anyone know how many cars Ginetta are making nowadays?
I know I am going to extremes but this shows how confusing things can get. Malcolma ( talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that {{ British Leyland}} and {{ British Car Industry}} have a great deal of common content, in fact so much that all of the “content” of the former is part of the content of the latter. Having recently tried to keep the updated content of the two templates in sync, I figured it might be easier to refactor the templates, such that their common part were put into a separate template – maybe {{ British Leyland/contents}}? Comments are welcome (at Template talk:British Leyland, please). – Fred Bradstadt ( talk) 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A minor detail, but I'm unclear why we need "Ford (PAG) Land Rover" as added with an edit summary which I couldn't quite follow — it's odd even in the table that we have which remains generally unclear about what it's supposed to be showing. Was there a separate company, owned by the PAG, called "Ford (PAG) Land Rover"? I think it should be "PAG" or "Ford (PAG)" "PAG (Ford)" at most, and this should be matched in the Jaguar boxes. Unless, that is, it actually was a separate company with that long-winded name that owned Land Rover. –
Kieran T (
talk)
10:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Adding Rootes got me to adding some smaller marques which were missing. I've reached the point where I'm wondering what is a sufficiently small marque to be omitted, or else the table will get very big.
In the meantime, some fascinating things have cropped up. Fascinating for geeks, anyway.
Armstrong Siddeley is one of the complicated old companies. The connection between Mr Siddeley and Wolseley is not shown here, and the Armstrong Whitworth cars are not shown either; too much detail I think.
The later ownership of A-S went to Bristol Siddeley, hence its ending up – unless there was some undocumented rationalisation within R-R that I haven't found out about – in the aero side of Rolls-Royce. The info here is based on other Wikipedia articles and their references, but I'd much rather have a source from R-R clarify whether they transferred the name from R-R Limited to R-R Motors and thus later may have sold the A-S trademark on to BMW or VW.
Anyway, that brings in a weird tangent. Jowett went to Blackburn Aviation. Later, in the massive rationalisation of the British aircraft industry, the Blackburn engine business appears to have gone to Bristol Siddeley too (as well as A-S, above), bringing Jowett perhaps, in the end, to Rolls Royce (aero, but see above the point on rationalisation; it may have gone to Motors). But the Blackburn airframe business appears to have gone to Hawker Siddeley instead. Which ended up not in R-R, but in BAe... so it could be that Rover ended up with the Jowett trademark, depending on which half of Blackburn took it! Either way, there seems a more than fair chance that VW or BMW own it now by one route or t'other!
What a lot of supposition. It's not exactly "original research" because it's all from existing WP articles, and the template isn't referenced independently of those at all. (Technically, perhaps it should be, since articles aren't supposed to cite each other! Practically, though, templates need to be an exception to this.) But really, it's horribly flaky. Has anyone a great source on these trademarks we could use to verify and confirm? – Kieran T ( talk) 18:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
When this template is collapsed, I see about 1cm of whitespace under the titlebar - does everyone else see that too? If so, does anyone know how to get rid of it? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
<!--
and -->
) in {{
British Leyland/contents}}. IE is known to sometimes display whitespace where comments are present. My best advice, though, would be: Do not use Internet Explorer. Use
Firefox :-) –
Fred Bradstadt (
talk)
08:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)This is a brilliantly crafted diagram of Britain's convoluted automotive history, and is extremely helpful especially in regards to the former BMC/Leyland/Rover marques. Many thanks to the original creators for having the time and patience to put it all together and make it work so well. Duncan1800 ( talk) 02:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly I want to add my voice to the comments of Duncan1800 above, this template is a stunning and exceptionally useful piece of work.
I have a query about Peugeot for the regular editors of the template. I understood that Peugeot moved its remaining UK manufacturing activities to France in 2006 [1], having moved the UK based R&D activities to France many years earlier, and no longer has a meaningful presence in the UK beyond retail? I wonder if it shouldn't therefore be treated like, for example, Reliant, TVR and Marcos, and given a cut-off? Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
What about including some of the smaller and new companies?
Arash has been in business since 1999. At the other end of the spectrum (both numerically and alphabetically) Zenos seems to have been started in 2013.
How long does a company have to be in business to be included? How does this relate to companies like Turner (10 years) and Vulcan (18 years), both included in the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.252.25 ( talk) 09:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 23:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:British Car Industry → Template:British car industry – Spelling should be corrected. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||
|
Criteria for inclusion need to be established. For example, for what reason is Ford omitted? Many were built here. Is the intention to represent British corporate ownership; British construction; British sales; British public perception? The template fails to be correct or complete (yet) on any and all of these measures.
Also, before it is transcluded all over the place, I believe it should be renamed. Automobile is valid British English, but is neither common nor comfortable, and indeed includes buses and trucks in its definition, unlike this template (probably! See above.) This discussion has been held in the past in the Wikiproject Automobiles discussions... "car industry" is much preferred. If trucks are to be included, then "motor vehicle industry". – Kieran T ( talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If you are going to add Ford, a company that although a major British presence never as far as I am aware had British ownership (I don't think Ford of Britain had a UK stock listing), then there is a case for adding Honda, Nissan, BMW and Toyota who are, after all, the major manufacturers today. This could then be followed by SAIC.
We also must not forget Clyno who, although forgotten today, were in the mid 1920s Britain's third largest maker turning out over 40,000 cars and so dwarfing the likes of Bristol, TVR and Morgan. Does anyone know how many cars Ginetta are making nowadays?
I know I am going to extremes but this shows how confusing things can get. Malcolma ( talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that {{ British Leyland}} and {{ British Car Industry}} have a great deal of common content, in fact so much that all of the “content” of the former is part of the content of the latter. Having recently tried to keep the updated content of the two templates in sync, I figured it might be easier to refactor the templates, such that their common part were put into a separate template – maybe {{ British Leyland/contents}}? Comments are welcome (at Template talk:British Leyland, please). – Fred Bradstadt ( talk) 21:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
A minor detail, but I'm unclear why we need "Ford (PAG) Land Rover" as added with an edit summary which I couldn't quite follow — it's odd even in the table that we have which remains generally unclear about what it's supposed to be showing. Was there a separate company, owned by the PAG, called "Ford (PAG) Land Rover"? I think it should be "PAG" or "Ford (PAG)" "PAG (Ford)" at most, and this should be matched in the Jaguar boxes. Unless, that is, it actually was a separate company with that long-winded name that owned Land Rover. –
Kieran T (
talk)
10:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Adding Rootes got me to adding some smaller marques which were missing. I've reached the point where I'm wondering what is a sufficiently small marque to be omitted, or else the table will get very big.
In the meantime, some fascinating things have cropped up. Fascinating for geeks, anyway.
Armstrong Siddeley is one of the complicated old companies. The connection between Mr Siddeley and Wolseley is not shown here, and the Armstrong Whitworth cars are not shown either; too much detail I think.
The later ownership of A-S went to Bristol Siddeley, hence its ending up – unless there was some undocumented rationalisation within R-R that I haven't found out about – in the aero side of Rolls-Royce. The info here is based on other Wikipedia articles and their references, but I'd much rather have a source from R-R clarify whether they transferred the name from R-R Limited to R-R Motors and thus later may have sold the A-S trademark on to BMW or VW.
Anyway, that brings in a weird tangent. Jowett went to Blackburn Aviation. Later, in the massive rationalisation of the British aircraft industry, the Blackburn engine business appears to have gone to Bristol Siddeley too (as well as A-S, above), bringing Jowett perhaps, in the end, to Rolls Royce (aero, but see above the point on rationalisation; it may have gone to Motors). But the Blackburn airframe business appears to have gone to Hawker Siddeley instead. Which ended up not in R-R, but in BAe... so it could be that Rover ended up with the Jowett trademark, depending on which half of Blackburn took it! Either way, there seems a more than fair chance that VW or BMW own it now by one route or t'other!
What a lot of supposition. It's not exactly "original research" because it's all from existing WP articles, and the template isn't referenced independently of those at all. (Technically, perhaps it should be, since articles aren't supposed to cite each other! Practically, though, templates need to be an exception to this.) But really, it's horribly flaky. Has anyone a great source on these trademarks we could use to verify and confirm? – Kieran T ( talk) 18:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
When this template is collapsed, I see about 1cm of whitespace under the titlebar - does everyone else see that too? If so, does anyone know how to get rid of it? DH85868993 ( talk) 09:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
<!--
and -->
) in {{
British Leyland/contents}}. IE is known to sometimes display whitespace where comments are present. My best advice, though, would be: Do not use Internet Explorer. Use
Firefox :-) –
Fred Bradstadt (
talk)
08:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)This is a brilliantly crafted diagram of Britain's convoluted automotive history, and is extremely helpful especially in regards to the former BMC/Leyland/Rover marques. Many thanks to the original creators for having the time and patience to put it all together and make it work so well. Duncan1800 ( talk) 02:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly I want to add my voice to the comments of Duncan1800 above, this template is a stunning and exceptionally useful piece of work.
I have a query about Peugeot for the regular editors of the template. I understood that Peugeot moved its remaining UK manufacturing activities to France in 2006 [1], having moved the UK based R&D activities to France many years earlier, and no longer has a meaningful presence in the UK beyond retail? I wonder if it shouldn't therefore be treated like, for example, Reliant, TVR and Marcos, and given a cut-off? Rangoon11 ( talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
What about including some of the smaller and new companies?
Arash has been in business since 1999. At the other end of the spectrum (both numerically and alphabetically) Zenos seems to have been started in 2013.
How long does a company have to be in business to be included? How does this relate to companies like Turner (10 years) and Vulcan (18 years), both included in the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.252.25 ( talk) 09:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 23:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:British Car Industry → Template:British car industry – Spelling should be corrected. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 ( 𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)