Template talk:British Leyland

message: Isn't it about time the header in the template was renamed from "rise and fall of BL" to something like "Timeline of the major British motor car manufacturers" GraemeLeggett 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO!  I strongly object.  The purpose of this template is to follow the rise and fall of Leyland - if we add in all the other bits of British motor companies it'll get much more complicated and it won't be useful for it's intended purpose.  Feel free to write a new template for what you want - but this one is needed in order to avoid repeating the same long and complicated discussions about how each of several dozen cars went from being made by first one company then another.  There are a LOT of articles about BL cars - and we need a simple way to dump all of that discussion and 'see also' type of links into a single, handy template.  It serves to hold all of the links to the various sub-articles relating to BL.  Rather than dramatically broadening the scope of this template (and let me remind you of it's title) - let us instead delete whatever extraneous content there is to keep this template doing it's title says it is.   If you feel the need to start a new template - feel free (although I think an article would be more appropriate). SteveBaker 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

message: What happened to Rover in the timeline twixt 1925ish and 1945ish - did the company cease to exist? The wikientry does not say.GraemeLeggett 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rover 1930/1940 

message: There is a box on the left of the diagram that says;  "Riley & from 1950s Mini name" - but whilst it talks about 'from 1950's', it ends in the 1930's.  I presume it's talking about the use of the Riley name in the Mini model called the Riley Elf.  But many of those early company names were similarly re-used but are not tagged as such.  For example, the Wolseley name was also used to name a Mini (the Wolseley Hornet - the exact same model as the Riley Elf as it happens).
This idea of subsequent name re-use being mentioned in this way is inconsistent - and has little to do with this kind of timeline (IMHO) so I'm removing it. SteveBaker 12:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with the Riley bit? 

message: Having seen the colours come, and very rapidly go, I'd just like to say/vote that I liked them and thought they added to the usability. There were issues with the particular choices, for example giving yellow to VDP, where there would be no confusion, but having Ford and MGR in very similar lilacs. But overall, I'd prefer to see them come back again! Steve, could you be persuaded? ;) Kierant 15:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: I think that all of those horribly detailed footnotes in flyspeck-3 font need to go away.  This is supposed to be a handy-dandy navigational aid that you can drop into the bottom of an article to give people a quick overview of the history of the company.  If they need all of this detail, they should be going to the main article at British Leyland Motor Corporation.  The recently addition of the trademark numbers of the company name was the straw that broke the camels back. SteveBaker 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The triumph note is fairly important, the Alvis more organizational - I've trimmed them down again. GraemeLeggett 14:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack!  Yet more stupid footnotes.  Guys - this is supposed to be a mere navigational template - it's getting close to an entire screenful.  The intent here is not to put up a fully researched and annotated article - that is the job of British Leyland (ie the article) which is linked from the template.  The function of this template is to provide a simple overview - a way for articles about BL cars to easily link to all of the articles about the BL ancestor and descendent companies.  With all of the junk on the end, it's getting to the point where I'm going to have to remove it from the articles I patrol because it's WAY too intrusive.  My inclination is to simply delete all of the footnotes and go back to the clean, easy-to-understand version of the template.  All of that information should be in the British Leyland article - or in articles about the ancestors and descendents...and that is exactly as it should be.  If anyone has a contrary viewpoint - let's hear it - but for my money, the footnotes need to just go away. SteveBaker 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: This template has horribly lost its way. I've just seen it added to the Bristol page, and I note that it now includes Vauxhall, but not Ford. This is a mish-mash. I get the point that calling it "...British Leyland..." was too narrow, but it's totally changing its purpose to try to cover all... what? Cars sold in Britain it isn't. Cars made in Britain it isn't. Cars made by British owners it isn't. It isn't even comfortable British English to title it "automobile industry". I'm tempted to revert it back a couple of weeks. – Kieran T (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's become horribly confusing.  Instead of reverting I feel we should capitalise upon its current use, seek a new name (see below) and run with it positively. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What on earth? 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
:*Neutral – Please note that I am not, on reflection, either in favour of or against a move, or a split.  I am against a simple reversion.  I put this "process" here because I was surprised to see this template deployed on a wholly non BL page.  Thus, while I have proposed a move my position ought to be counted as neutral.  My objective is to see the thing regularised, and also to see the hard work and data in the template preserved in some useful form. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose - What is needed is for a template that we can stick onto the myriad articles about Leyland cars (etc) that explains the companies complex history.  Rather than allowing the template to stray from that purpose - and then renaming it for whatever it becomes - we must focus on restraining it to remain within the bounds of the original purpose. SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - and support a partial revert with ongoing development of the original purpose. I agree entirely with Steve, above. There may well be a need for a "British car industry" template (note, please, not "automobile") but there is a strong need for a table which explains, as clearly and concisely as possible, the complex history of the companies which were merged into BMC, BMH, BL, AMJRT, ARG, etc. There may also be a need for one for the Rootes Group. But to get all that information in one place is never going to be readable. – Kieran T (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: So, it's great to see that the slew of articles which aren't BL now have :Template:British Automobile Industry in them. But, there remain two crucial questions over this template (discussion should be over there, but I hope to draw attention to the questions and the previous discussion is here...) :
# Criteria for inclusion need to be established. For example, for what reason is Ford omitted? Many were built in Britain. Is the intention to represent British corporate ownership; British construction; British sales; Britishness in public perception? The template fails to be correct or complete (yet) on any and all of these measures.
# Also, before it is included in any more articles, I believe it should be renamed. Automobile is valid in British English, but is neither commonest nor comfortable. This discussion has been held in the past in the Wikiproject Automobiles discussions (and the Manual of Style)... "car industry" is much preferred. If trucks are to be included, then "motor vehicle industry". – Kieran T (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put back the word "Car" into the title as the template does not address the truck, van and bus side of Leyland. Malcolma (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! I'd forgotten that we had a big talk about this on WikiProjectAutomobiles a while ago and discovered a pretty broad definition of "automobile". I've taken this as sufficient cause to go ahead and change the "British Automobile Industry" template to "British Car Industry" and am in the process of avoiding redirects in a lot of articles. This is based on the template's apparent inclusion only of car companies and lack of distinctly bus and truck ones. Apologies for monopolising your watchlists! ;) – Kieran T (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Still to be addressed

message: The way the template looks at the moment it looks like Rover (including Alvis) along with BMH and Leyland became British Leyland well this is not true as Leyland bought out Rover a year or so before the merger with BMH to become British Leyland I'm not sure how to change the template to mark this but am sure someone else can.
Also am not sure if it was after the takeover of Rover or Standard Triumph that Leyland Motors Ltd became the Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd (LMC) Penrithguy (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rover, Rover Alvis - Leyland 

message: How about making a similar template for the commercial vehicle brands that were absorbed into British Leyland and its successors? Penrithguy (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial Vehicles