:At the top it says "not world wide content" as a warning — it's not seen as a good thing! It's not a pro-active choice. Random editors with no interest in the Transit are liable to see that flag and copyedit the article to fix the "problem", which I think is less desirable than we, who seem to care about the subject, editing it. 
 :As for the Thames, where there's a connection to the Transit in terms of development (even development of the marketplace), then I'd certainly agree it should get a mention in the text, but if it was never called Transit, and didn't share a floorpan, it probably shouldn't be in anything so big as a sub-section. Really, in that circumstance, it should have its own article, and be linked to appropriately. Have a look at the treatment of the LDV Pilot to see how the old Morris pre-Sherpa vans are mentioned. 
 :And just to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you over what Ford themselves count as part of the Transit line. It's just that that's not the point with regard to inclusion of the German van. The point is, the article is where people come if they're interested in Transits. Only the reader knows which Transit they mean. We include the verifiable "Transit" information and let that speak for itself. I don't think the article is misleading. At no point does it claim that the German van was part of the main family in the UK. If it did, it'd be a strong argument to reword it, but as it is I don't see any good argument to deny the reader the information. –  ('''')