This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966 template. |
|
Automobiles Template‑class | |||||||
|
this template needs a lot of expansion to include models such as P4, SD1, as well as Austin, Morris, MG. Leyland, BL, BMC, Triumph,Austin-Healey, etc, etc. I've not really got the time/knowledge to do it right now, but i'll try and get back to it if no-one else does. Spute 11:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's a list of some cars which need adding to the template, in a well organised way- i'd suggest sepaarting brands and chronological within brand. Also the template needs adding to the article pages for most of these vehicles.
Spute 11:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I've converted this to a navbox so it's collapsible. Shouldn't be any fallout. Chris Cunningham 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the scope of this template? What is the earliest qualifying year for vehicles? Is it 52 the year of the formation of BMC or Mid 60s with BMH/BL? GraemeLeggett 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the Princess 1700/1800/2000/2200 models were sold from under the Princess name, not as Leylands, ie Princess was marque in its own right. Please refer Graham Robson, A-Z of Cars of the 1970s, page 133. GTHO ( talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't uncommon to see them in NZ 20 years ago. Since that time, restrictions on used Japanese imports have been relaxed. This has wiped most BL type cars off the road as Japanese imports usually have higher spec eg. electric windows, AC etc. So, these were seen in NZ in the 1980's but are extremely rare now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.194.170 ( talk) 09:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the moving of this template to Template:Automobiles made by BMC, BL and Rover Group companies, post-1945, and the subsequent overwriting of the redirect with a new navbox dealing only with the Rover company has resulted in many articles transcluding this template inappropriately, e.g. Morris Marina, Triumph TR6, Riley Pathfinder, Austin A35 etc. In terms of remedial editing work involved, it would be a lot easier to move the current template to a different name, and reinstate the old redirect, than edit the many non-Rover related articles to use the BMC/BL/Rover Group template name. Anyone else want to comment? Regards, Letdorf ( talk) 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
I don't see why we are including models like the Triumph Mayflower, the production of which ceased in 1953, fifteen years before Triumph came under British Leyland ownership. I propose to delete this and similar "non BMC/BL/Rover Group" models from the template. GTHO ( talk) 08:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If the scope of this template is to list only cars that were made by BMC while BMC existed, BL while BL existed, and Rover Group while Rover Group existed, then it is not only misleadingly named but cumbersome. It would be better to have three different templates:
These are clear and precise. To have a template for "Automobiles made by BMC, BL and Rover Group companies, post-1945" is to invite every post-WWII car from every company that had been in British Leyland, especially since there was no such thing as BMC until 1952. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
One fact which we have all ignored is that BMC only existed until 1966 in which year it changed its name to British Motor Holdings. It was British Motor Holdings, not BMC, which merged with the Leyland Motor Corporation to form British Leyland in 1968. Do we need four templates? GTHO ( talk) 09:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Move and split completed. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 13:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Should this template be renamed "British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966" or are we including BMH cars in this now? GTHO ( talk) 09:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966 template. |
|
Automobiles Template‑class | |||||||
|
this template needs a lot of expansion to include models such as P4, SD1, as well as Austin, Morris, MG. Leyland, BL, BMC, Triumph,Austin-Healey, etc, etc. I've not really got the time/knowledge to do it right now, but i'll try and get back to it if no-one else does. Spute 11:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's a list of some cars which need adding to the template, in a well organised way- i'd suggest sepaarting brands and chronological within brand. Also the template needs adding to the article pages for most of these vehicles.
Spute 11:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I've converted this to a navbox so it's collapsible. Shouldn't be any fallout. Chris Cunningham 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the scope of this template? What is the earliest qualifying year for vehicles? Is it 52 the year of the formation of BMC or Mid 60s with BMH/BL? GraemeLeggett 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the Princess 1700/1800/2000/2200 models were sold from under the Princess name, not as Leylands, ie Princess was marque in its own right. Please refer Graham Robson, A-Z of Cars of the 1970s, page 133. GTHO ( talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't uncommon to see them in NZ 20 years ago. Since that time, restrictions on used Japanese imports have been relaxed. This has wiped most BL type cars off the road as Japanese imports usually have higher spec eg. electric windows, AC etc. So, these were seen in NZ in the 1980's but are extremely rare now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.194.170 ( talk) 09:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the moving of this template to Template:Automobiles made by BMC, BL and Rover Group companies, post-1945, and the subsequent overwriting of the redirect with a new navbox dealing only with the Rover company has resulted in many articles transcluding this template inappropriately, e.g. Morris Marina, Triumph TR6, Riley Pathfinder, Austin A35 etc. In terms of remedial editing work involved, it would be a lot easier to move the current template to a different name, and reinstate the old redirect, than edit the many non-Rover related articles to use the BMC/BL/Rover Group template name. Anyone else want to comment? Regards, Letdorf ( talk) 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
I don't see why we are including models like the Triumph Mayflower, the production of which ceased in 1953, fifteen years before Triumph came under British Leyland ownership. I propose to delete this and similar "non BMC/BL/Rover Group" models from the template. GTHO ( talk) 08:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If the scope of this template is to list only cars that were made by BMC while BMC existed, BL while BL existed, and Rover Group while Rover Group existed, then it is not only misleadingly named but cumbersome. It would be better to have three different templates:
These are clear and precise. To have a template for "Automobiles made by BMC, BL and Rover Group companies, post-1945" is to invite every post-WWII car from every company that had been in British Leyland, especially since there was no such thing as BMC until 1952. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
One fact which we have all ignored is that BMC only existed until 1966 in which year it changed its name to British Motor Holdings. It was British Motor Holdings, not BMC, which merged with the Leyland Motor Corporation to form British Leyland in 1968. Do we need four templates? GTHO ( talk) 09:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Move and split completed. Sincerely, SamBlob ( talk) 13:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Should this template be renamed "British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966" or are we including BMH cars in this now? GTHO ( talk) 09:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)