Talk:British Leyland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Rover trademark retained by BMW?
I heard this in a business report on Radio 4 yesterday, talking about which assets were currently still owned by Austin Rover. I presume that BMW allows Austin Rover as licensee to produce Rover vehicles without charge. If anyone can correct or corroborate this, I'd be grateful.
[edit] Your help requested
The Mini article is in the Wikipedia:Peer review process - perhaps heading towards Featured Article status. I would greatly appreciate experts on BL taking a look at it. (If you find a problem, please either fix it or post your concerns on the Talk:Mini page. TIA SteveBaker 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nationalization
Autocar’s centennial edition in October 1995 clearly states that BL was never nationalized. It was only effectively so. Yet I find assertions all over Wikipedia that BL was nationalized. Anyone want to weigh in on the debate?—Stombs 07:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on the definition of nationalized that you use. In the Wikipedia "Nationalization" article it says: "Nationalization or nationalisation is the act of taking assets into public ownership/state ownership". Gillian Bardsley, the archivist for the British Motor Industry Heritage Trust, which holds many of the original BL papers, says in her book Issigonis: The Official Biography that the British Government had a 99.8% stake in British Leyland Limited, the holding company created in 1975. If 100% state ownership is required to declare full nationalization then it falls short by 0.2%. -- de Facto (talk). 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we can take Autocar as necessarily being definitive. For example, [1] says "BLMC was nationalised to become British Leyland Ltd"...so we have duelling sources and we have to look to other means to resolve the issue. Wiktionary says: Nationalize: To convert a private industry into one controlled by the government. - so nationalisation is taking the business into government control. Since you have control with a 51% share a business can be partially owned by the government - and yet still be nationalised. In this article we have a responsibility to explain about the 99.8% thing in some detail - but elsewhere, 'nationalized' is clearly a perfectly acceptable shorthand for "99.8% owned by the government". So...Who owned the other 0.2% of the shares? If I had to bet, I'd say that it was probably shares awarded to management as a part of some kind of incentive scheme - but it would be nice to know for sure. SteveBaker 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good points—thank you for clearing that up. I do agree that a majority shareholding by the government is certainly enough for nationalization in my view.—Stombs 01:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we can take Autocar as necessarily being definitive. For example, [1] says "BLMC was nationalised to become British Leyland Ltd"...so we have duelling sources and we have to look to other means to resolve the issue. Wiktionary says: Nationalize: To convert a private industry into one controlled by the government. - so nationalisation is taking the business into government control. Since you have control with a 51% share a business can be partially owned by the government - and yet still be nationalised. In this article we have a responsibility to explain about the 99.8% thing in some detail - but elsewhere, 'nationalized' is clearly a perfectly acceptable shorthand for "99.8% owned by the government". So...Who owned the other 0.2% of the shares? If I had to bet, I'd say that it was probably shares awarded to management as a part of some kind of incentive scheme - but it would be nice to know for sure. SteveBaker 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Could BL qualify for the defunct company infobox or is it just a group of independent companies?
Aeons 07:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BL Category
Should all the various BL/BMC/Leyland/Rover articles be put in a new Brtish Leyland category? Penrithguy 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is: Should it be a "British Leyland" cat - or should it be a "BMC" cat - or maybe a "Nuffield Organisation" cat...where do we make the cut? SteveBaker 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BL Logo
Does anyone have access to the slightly different logo of BL from after around 1980 with the L missing in the centre. Penrithguy 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tractor
Where should text on the Leyland tractor be integrated into Wikipedia? [2] It was international: I live in the United States. My uncle had one and my grandpa still does. I'll take a picture. They were imported into the U.S. in the 1970s. Royalbroil 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Image added. Royalbroil 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
