Jump to content

Talk:Carbodies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Only two editors contributed to the discussion, and weren't able to reach agreement. Aervanath (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Carbodies → LTI Limited – As the article now covers the history of this company after its name was changed to "LTI Limited" it seems reasonable per Wikipedia:NAMECHANGES to use the company's latest name. Note that although WP:NCCORP says that the legal status suffix of a company ("Limited" in this case) "is not normally included in the article title", it makes an exception for names that need disambiguating, as this one does to differeniate it from all the other LTIs. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a split rather than a move? Carbodies was snapped up by Dennis Poore as a potential recovery situation and I suppose that eventually happened. Could the period of Manganese Bronze ownership beginning 1973 (from the article) to 2012 become a separate article? Thanks for all the good work. (Currently over-stressed outside WP) Eddaido (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be split, but as under both names it is essentially the same company (reg. no. is the same) on the same premises with the same people and making the same vehicles, I think that as the only significant difference between the two is the ownership that they should remain in the same article. Separated articles would have a lot of overlap and, I think, be confusing as the transition between the two and differention between taxi models between the two is very unclear. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Though it is the same business its now making quite different things for different customers under a different name. It used to just make fancy versions of mass production bodies. Have a look at the pictures on the page. Eddaido (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It started making taxis independently before MBH bought it and it carried on doing the same thing, and as Carbodies, for about twenty years after MBH took over. Even then, after the rename to LTI, it was about another five years before they brought out a new taxicab model, the TX1, to replace the almost 40-year-old FX4. I'm not sure there's enough different stuff happening during the MBH era to justify splitting the company that only brought out two more models in its remaining sixteen years. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry there's a misunderstanding. I'm not concerned about the MBH era, I am thinking of the prior Carbodies business. I had better explain. MBH only gets a mention because I wanted to write about its original manufacture of propellers and bearings and did not have the time to write a proper article so I banged it in there. MBH is only a holding company, its significance has somehow got majorly overblown. Dennis Poore would be a better name for an owner.
Back to the current topic. The split should be at the death of the coachbuilding business and the start of the taxi business. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding there. Eddaido (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got you now. We could keep the relevant parts of this article and rename it as something like "Carbodies coachbuilding operations" and create a new article for the Carbodies/LTI taxicab operations and name it "LTI Limited". -- DeFacto (talk). 19:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest (article 1) Carbodies Limited (carbodies is as generic as can be) and (article 2) LTI Limited which in its article might be explained as formerly named Carbodies and let the brief overlap be a fudge for a truly concerned reader to work out for her / himself. Carbodies was very well known in its day. Maybe I should try to do a stub for Manganese Bronze Bearings and it could go on the changed name MBH article with an MBH section as a kind of suffix. I'll have a go and show you what I come up with before any changes but please don't hold your breath while I do it, I may be at it for some time but I'm not an Antarctic explorer. Like you I've been concerned about the state of the article and I have had on my desktop since I think October a re-draft which I could not get back to. Hence the pleasure you gave by doing it for me. Eddaido (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But article 1 would have to end before Carbodies Limited had been renamed, and article 2 would start whilst the company was still called Carbodies Limited. Otherwise coverage of the independent taxicab building era would span both articles - that's why I think the name of article 1 needs to narrower and more nuanced. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's where the fudge is necessary. I mean its not necessary to spell it out but let it be plain to anyone who is reading for good cause as distinct from idling. They can find their own nuances! What do you think about that? Eddaido (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the title isn't clear and explicit, we'll get editors continually adding what they assume to be "missing" taxicab operations history. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow that. Can you explain further? Eddaido (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking if it's just about the coach building era but only called Carbodies then we'll see repeated additions of stuff about their taxicabs models too. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there was no significant change from the end of MunBill’s work in October 2011, six years, until I fiddled with the lead in October 2017 now that more information had become readily available about the collapse. (By the way they used to have their own site and history of their business which I got to know and maybe you missed it?)
Over the last couple of months you have added, I think by mistake (your suggestion above is that others might make a similar mistake but they haven't), detailed information on the period after 1992 which I think should be with London Taxis International (which did far more than just build taxis) — a renamed Manganese Bronze Holdings article so leaving this article as it was a few months ago
I would support adding Limited to the name of this Carbodies article because the current name is too generic.
Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Other stuff

[edit]

In the text it says "In 1992 Carbodies Limited changed its name to LTI Limited." in the infobox it says 1984. Which is correct? Eddaido (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is referenced to the company number, so I changed the infobox to 1992. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MunBill

[edit]

Please note this contributor is Bill Munro, author of Carbodies: The Complete Story, Crowood, UK 1998, ISBN 978-1-86126-127-4. I was pleased to manage to persuade Bill to come on board. Here's more about him Amazon Author Page Bill Munro. Eddaido (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this from both of you - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Eddaido, which contributor are you referring to? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MunBill. Eddaido (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the red link is because he has no user page! -- DeFacto (talk). 13:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Taxis International

[edit]

Please check this. In 1984 Manganese Bronze also bought Mann and Overton, co-designer of the first Carbodies taxi. M&O provided many more services than wholesaling and retailing taxis. MB put them all into one 'division' and, now freshly permitted by law, they were promoted and traded together under the one trading name London Taxis International - not a legal entity. I think this, 1984, is the time of sea change when a new article about LTI should start. The Carbodies article remains and continues into the 1990s. I haven't re-read what I wrote about M&O. @DeFacto: can you verify this? Eddaido (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to find reliable sources drawing that conclusion if we are to use it in that way. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm asking you for. If you disagree can you show the opposite holds true? Eddaido (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All we are certain about is the dates the companies' registered names were changed. I don't have any understanding of how trading names work or whether they were a new thing with the Business Names Act 1985, or just differently regulated. What I do know is that with company names comprising standard and extremely common words - e.g. Carbodies (car bodies), London, taxi, company, international, etc. - and the use of a variety of similar trading names and variations and abbreviations of them, it is very difficult to find appropriate reference material and to string together the naming and structures. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No successor?

[edit]

Hi Eddaido, I wondered why you believe there is no successor company to LTI. The London Taxi Corporation (now the London EV Company) was created from the ashes of LTI and provided continuity of support for the TX4 vehicle. They may not be the same company number, but they are true successors, as in they came along after LTI and took its place. They even continued to use "The London Taxi Company" as their trading name, which was being used by LTI when it went down. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a disused trading name can be recycled immediately, specially if they have registered a new properly incorporated limited liability (yet possibly dormant) company with that name — check with a lawyer? They, Geely, when they replaced the dead business with an entirely new one stepped into the empty position in the taxi market after picking up useful pieces of Carbodies/LTI on the open market.
How do you define successor in order to describe LEVC as such? Eddaido (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this context: Successor n. A company that stepped into the empty position left by another company in a market after picking up useful pieces of the previous company on the open market. :)
-- DeFacto (talk). 07:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! hmmm. It just seems to me to imply a link / tie / relationship that isn't there. Know you feel you can see it but I think you are misleading readers. Incidentally if Geely'd only offered £5 for the trade name London Taxi Company and nobody offered more I suspect the liquidator would have had to grab it, well maybe a bit more than £5, of course I don't know, that's just a 'suspect'. Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only link it implies is that one took over where the other left off. That's what the field is for, to help readers to know that and to follow the trail. The prose should explain the circumstances. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddaido: are we still at stalemate on this? I hope you can see the logic I am trying to convey. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. I can put up with your wish if you just indicate within the article what you mean. You could (for example) have a little final paragraph headed successor and explain and in the end of the lead perhaps a high density version? Nothing immediately heretofore said should be construed as an instruction! Do your own thing, if I don't like it rely on me to say so. Regards, Eddaido (talk)

I have managed to accumulate a great heap of material (many more than 100 newspaper items are now on my files) going back to 1882 about Manganese Bronze & Brass. The greatest part of the heap is about the time when now under the control of a small finance company belonging to a Mr Poore, chairman, (saviour of The British Motorcycle) and under a new name Manganese Bronze Holdings its many major investment disasters reduced it to discovering 'behind some bike sheds' or somewhere a (comparatively) little business called Carbodies which it seemed they had never noticed before. Suddenly it was all they had aside from the remains of some metals companies which they soon managed to lose too. Now all I need is to find some enthusiasm to work through it. Eddaido (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that! -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 October 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO CONSENSUS (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carbodies → The London Taxi Company – Most recent trading name of the company, Carbodies name ceased to be used 20 years before its demise so The London Taxi Company fits the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME. Sestsanz (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this Chinese taxi builder deserves its own article. Have they moved all production to China yet? Eddaido (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, and with a £300m plant opened only 18 months ago, unlikely there are any immediate plans to transfer all production offshore.[1] Sestsanz (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current level of sales? Sometimes plants sell easier than taxis, specially when home beckons — where they build every kind of car for themselves (though not yet the most expensive BMWs and VWs (Rolls & Bentley). Eddaido (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed at length above it is now only a "company" linking the business to Carbodies. Eddaido (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article is about Carbodies/LTI, which traded as The London Taxi Company from 2010 until it was liquidated in 2013. For the new company founded in 2013, which started life as The London Taxi Corporation, but which also traded The London Taxi Company until 2017, we have the London EV Company article (the new company's current name). -- DeFacto (talk). 10:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then De, that means the proposed name change is even dafter than I thought. Eddaido (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's daft about naming the article after the company's most recent trading name? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, to policy says: If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. We need to decide based on what name the recent reliable sources use, and not by which name was in use the longest - and none of the recent sources referenced in the article appear to use the "Carbodies" name. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbodies&oldid=1239220901"