Template talk:British Car Industry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Criteria and name[edit]

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)

Whilst Ford does/did have a major presence in the UK, it is still a company which originated in the US, and remains 'headquartered' in the US. This template is about motor vehicle compaines which originated within the UK. (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Included companies[edit]

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 totally agree — but now that we've been presented with this template... the thing about Ford in particular is that Ford of Great Britain was very distinct, even within Europe. Also I find it very jarring to exclude Ford and yet have Vauxhall which has been under foreign ownership for so long... but the real question remains, what _is_ the British car industry? Is ownership definitely the criterion for you? – Kieran T (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Vauxhall is included because it was originally a British company - founded in the Vauxhall district of London. Ford are a US origin company. 'Ford of Britain' was merely a trading name of either Ford USA or Ford Europe. (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Commonalities between {{British Leyland}} and {{British Car Industry}}[edit]

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)

PAG discussion[edit]

The following discussion began (inappropriately! ;-) ) over at the British Leyland template; the comments from before 10 p.m. on 16Dec08 were originally left there.

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)

Kieran T, PAG is a holding entity that has never been a legal standalone company (which, however, does not mean that the bracketed PAG moniker in the template can be replaced by mere 'Ford' because that wouldn't be correct, either, and lead to major confusion as all the media communiqués referenced throughout Wikipedia talk about Ford (PAG)).
Due to the complicated legacy of the BL>RG era, Jaguar and Land Rover were indeed separate legal entities within PAG or "separate companies" as you prefer to put it (although they shared R&D assets and combined some sales channels via legal agreements that would make your head spin). In a way, the recent deletions away from "Ford (PAG) Jaguar" or "Ford (PAG) AML" to just "Ford (PAG)" were all incorrect, at least based on the naming guidelines and standards that you suggested yourself earlier. _But_ the readability is greatly improved through that, and that might be a priority for a combined navigational/explanatory box as tl:BL/BCI.
Although it is generally believed that "Ford" bought the 'Rover' marque in 2006, it was actually Ford's 'PAG - Land Rover' subsidiary company ("Jaguar Land Rover" as it is talked about in the media actually did not exist until the purchase by Tata Motors) that purchased the name "Rover" from BMW. Therefore, the...
  • expansion of the "Land Rover" graphical field into the Rover graphical field above is correct in line with the graphics design and visual language of all the bar-graph automotive templates across Wikipedia. I strongly discourage to change this tweak.
  • it was Ford (PAG) Land Rover that brought back the name Rover name under its wings (not Ford (PAG) or Ford (PAG) Jaguar), which was then bought by Tata together with Jaguar, and only then became the legal entity of "Jaguar Land Rover" with rights to the Daimler/Rover/Lanchester marques - as it is now correctly displayed in the graph (wasn't that way in the original version). In a way, keeping it as it stands would be correct according to your own naming guidelines and quality standards put forward throughout this talk page.
However, as I sense that you want to simplify this bit of the graph most eagerly, please allow me to assist you by suggesting two options to you: either you leave it as it is to keep it correct in light of the wiki conventions, or you reduce it to "Ford (PAG)" in the name of readability by deleting the 'Land Rover' bit -- which, however, is also a wikilink that leads to the relevant text that explains this unusual take-over. I guess you will be going for the latter bit ;) . Thanks for raising this point, SocialScienceLondon (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks very much for the level of detail on this. I must say I don't personally "want to simplify this bit of the graph most eagerly" at all. I want to get it correct and accurate (and I'm extremely grateful for your work towards this goal). Crucially, I want to do that in a way which results in a usable table, not just something that only we who have read all of this background can understand! ;)
I acknowledge that there's a minefield in going for "ease of reading" above "accuracy"! However, we can go a long way towards readability by paying close attention to consistency (which is a bit of a Wikipedia pillar anyway). On that tack, we need to note that the rest of the table has set a precedent of sorts, with Land Rover Group (BL plc) and Rover Group (BAe). On this basis, I'd want to go for PAG (Ford) in fact. The missing-out of Land Rover and Jaguar in those boxes is very deliberate: it's again in line with the rest of the table — the point being that those names are implicit because that's the row of the table that we're in. Although this loses one level of detail: presumably the rights to the marques of Lanchester and Daimler "went along with" Jaguar, and that would not be made clear; it almost requires a three-dimensional table to show "piggy-backing" of ownership like that.
On the point about AML (and your comment about my use of the term "company" for PAG, which you then go on to use yourself for "PAG - Land Rover"), are you saying that there were in fact several entities called PAG <something>? (For example the AML one and the Land Rover one?) I had presumed that the "G" (Group) meant they were brought under one roof, at least to a suitable degree of resolution for our purposes here.
Incidentally, on your point about the expansion of the graphical field, I entirely agree. – Kieran T (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Slightly separately, since we're now assessing whether PAG was a "company" at all, it should be considered whether BMC and both BMHs were companies at all times. Were they ever Trusts, or even Government Departments at any time? This'd need a bit of research if we were really serious about using "company" as opposed to "legal entity" or "holding group" or whatever as one of our criteria for inclusion. – Kieran T (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've sought in vain for references backing up these separate legal entities. I'm not for one moment saying that the assertion is wrong, just that I've been unable to verify it per WP:VERIFY requirements, so for the moment it's original research. Ford UK seem to be almost silent about PAG in their corporate press material. What I did find is the Wikipedia article on PAG, which clearly states: "PAG was responsible for Lincoln, Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover". WP articles are not references for each other, but until the detail is corrected or expanded over there, or references are provided here, it seems entirely proper and additionally in line with the precedent I mentioned above (the other companies, shown in bold) that this template uses simply "PAG". The reader is then able to consult the link to the PAG article, in addition to this talk page, to get more detail. – Kieran T (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Research needed on some ownership issues[edit]

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)

I don’t see this (using Firefox / Safari). Which browser do you use? –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
IE7 on Windows XP (sorry, I should have said that in the first place). DH85868993 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the transclusion of {{British Leyland/contents}} contributes about half the whitespace (i.e. when I commented it out and did a preview, half the whitespace disappeared; when I uncommented it, the extra whitespace returned). DH85868993 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I have just tried viewing the template in IE6 and IE7 on Windows XP, but there was no whitespace under the titlebar. Very strange indeed – I don’t know why our browsers don’t display the same thing… You might want to play around with the HTML comments (<!-- 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)

Just some simple praise[edit]

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)

That's a fair point, but it depends if you view the template as indicating actual car manufacture, or brand ownership. There are several now-dormant marques (eg. Austin, Morris, Riley, Triumph) which are shown in the template to continue to the present day, but only to illustrate current ownership. Letdorf (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
Is there any way that ownership and production could both could be shown, perhaps through the use of colour e.g. different colours for marques still in production? Or alternatively a way that the Peugeot box could go a different colour after 2006 but remain titled as Peugeot, to show that there was a change in participation?
If i'm honest I guess an issue that I have with the Peugeot part of the template is that it gives the impression that they remain 'part' of the British car industry, when in reality they treated the UK very shabbily and moved all activities back to their home country. I completely understand why Ford, Toyota, Honda and Nissan are not on the template, and don't propose adding them, but it does seem very unfair for those continuing big investors and employers in the UK car industry to not be included but Peugeot to be presented as an active participant.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a different colour for dormant marques might be a good idea. Letdorf (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

Arash to Zenos[edit]

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 (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)