Template talk:British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966 template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Expansion

this template needs a lot of expansion to include models such as P4, SD1, as well as Austin, Morris, MG. Leyland, BL, BMC, Triumph,Austin-Healey, etc, etc. I've not really got the time/knowledge to do it right now, but i'll try and get back to it if no-one else does. Spute 11:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of some cars which need adding to the template, in a well organised way- i'd suggest sepaarting brands and chronological within brand. Also the template needs adding to the article pages for most of these vehicles.

Morris 1800
Morris Isis
Morris Ital
Morris Marina
Morris Minor
Morris Mini Minor
Morris Oxford
Mini
Morris Marina
Leyland P76
Leyland Princess
Rover 100
Rover 200
Rover 2000
Rover 25
Rover 3500
Rover 400
Rover 45
Rover 600
Rover 75
Rover 800
CityRover
Rover Metro
Rover P4
Rover P5
Rover P6
Rover Streetwise
Rover SD1
Austin-Healey 100
Austin-Healey 3000
Austin-Healey Sprite
Austin 1800
Austin 7
Austin A30
Austin A35
Austin A40
Austin A40 Devon
Austin A40 Farina
Austin A40 Somerset
Austin A40 Sports
Austin A70
Austin Allegro
Austin Atlantic
Austin Ambassador
Austin Champ
Austin Gypsy
Austin Seven
Austin Sheerline
Austin Berkeley
Austin Cambridge
Austin Maestro
Austin Maxi
Austin Metro
Austin Montego
Austin Princess
Austin Westminster

Spute 11:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion

I've converted this to a navbox so it's collapsible. Shouldn't be any fallout. Chris Cunningham 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template scope

What is the scope of this template? What is the earliest qualifying year for vehicles? Is it 52 the year of the formation of BMC or Mid 60s with BMH/BL? GraemeLeggett 14:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess as a marque

Please note that the Princess 1700/1800/2000/2200 models were sold from under the Princess name, not as Leylands, ie Princess was marque in its own right. Please refer Graham Robson, A-Z of Cars of the 1970s, page 133. GTHO (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is debatable - for instance, this brochure carries the Leyland logo and mentions "Leyland Cars" in various places. Letdorf (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's not surprising that the Princess brochure would carry the logo and the name of its manufacturer but the manufacturer and the marque are not always the same thing. Importantly the brochure referred to does not use the name "Leyland Princess" anywhere in its 12 pages. In addition, reference is made to the car as being "simply a Princess" at Princess buyer's guide GTHO (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed on WP before — if I can dig out where, I'll come back and post a link to it. But if I remember rightly, the loose consensus that was reached was that it's better not to make a claim either way in our articles, because we can't go back and read minds to be sure what the intention was. It seems to me that "Princess" might have become clearly accepted as a marque later but it never got the chance. That's irrelevant, of course, if we have reliable secondary sources which verify the case either way. GTHO, could you please tell us precisely what Graham Robson has to say about the marque status? – Kieran T ^(talk) 02:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant words on page 133 of Robson's book are "Once a BMC Model name given to plush versions of Austins, Princess was a marque 'invented' by British Leyland to re-badge Austin, Morris and Wolseley wedge-styled front-drive saloons in 1975" and "British Leyland 'invented' a new marque after nationalisation, these cars being no more and no less than Austin/Morris/Wolseley 18-22 series cars" GTHO (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common in New Zealand

It wasn't uncommon to see them in NZ 20 years ago. Since that time, restrictions on used Japanese imports have been relaxed. This has wiped most BL type cars off the road as Japanese imports usually have higher spec eg. electric windows, AC etc. So, these were seen in NZ in the 1980's but are extremely rare now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.194.170 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate transclusion

I've just noticed that the moving of this template to Template:Automobiles made by BMC, BL and Rover Group companies, post-1945, and the subsequent overwriting of the redirect with a new navbox dealing only with the Rover company has resulted in many articles transcluding this template inappropriately, e.g. Morris Marina, Triumph TR6, Riley Pathfinder, Austin A35 etc. In terms of remedial editing work involved, it would be a lot easier to move the current template to a different name, and reinstate the old redirect, than edit the many non-Rover related articles to use the BMC/BL/Rover Group template name. Anyone else want to comment? Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Oops, just noticed now that this talk page is still redirecting - to clarify, I'm talking about Template:Rover here. Letdorf (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Deletion of models not produced under BMC, BL and Rover Group ownership

I don't see why we are including models like the Triumph Mayflower, the production of which ceased in 1953, fifteen years before Triumph came under British Leyland ownership. I propose to delete this and similar "non BMC/BL/Rover Group" models from the template. GTHO (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions made as proposed. GTHO (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the title of the template includes "post-1945", so presumably whoever named it thus intended the template to include all post-1945 models made by the companies who were later merged into BMC/BL? If you want to limit the template to models made during the BMC/BL/A-R (etc) era then the "post-1945" is no longer appropriate and should be deleted. Also, if article links are added/deleted from the template, then the template should be added/deleted to/from those articles for consistency. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Was Triumph a BL company? Yes. Did Triumph make the Mayflower after 1945? Yes. That's why. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing move and split

If the scope of this template is to list only cars that were made by BMC while BMC existed, BL while BL existed, and Rover Group while Rover Group existed, then it is not only misleadingly named but cumbersome. It would be better to have three different templates:

British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1968
British Leyland cars, 1968-1986, and
Rover Group cars, 1986-2005.

These are clear and precise. To have a template for "Automobiles made by BMC, BL and Rover Group companies, post-1945" is to invite every post-WWII car from every company that had been in British Leyland, especially since there was no such thing as BMC until 1952. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very sensible proposal and overdue.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree totally. GTHO (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support an obvious JFDI --Biker Biker (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One fact which we have all ignored is that BMC only existed until 1966 in which year it changed its name to British Motor Holdings. It was British Motor Holdings, not BMC, which merged with the Leyland Motor Corporation to form British Leyland in 1968. Do we need four templates? GTHO (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMH lasted only two years; they could be added to the end of BMC as BMC/BMH, but it would probably be better to add them to the beginning of BL as BMH/BL to avoid 1952-1966 Jaguars, Daimlers and Lanchesters (despite Lanchester going out of production in 1953) being added. The only problem with this is the possibility of adding Leyland Cars (Rovers and Triumphs) that went out of production between 1966 and 1968, which would be the TR4A on Triumph's side and I haven't checked yet what it would be on Rover's. How big a problem would that be? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the potential issues that you have raised are reason enough to have a separate BMH template. GTHO (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For two years of existence? Why would that be reason enough?

I'll develop the templates, especially the BMH/BL template, in my sandbox over the weekend. We can discuss them as they go along. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links: User:SamBlob/sandbox#Development of templates for BMH/BL cars and Rover Group cars and User:SamBlob/sandbox/Template for British Motor Holdings and British Leyland cars, 1966-1986 Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SamBlob/sandbox/Template for British Motor Holdings and British Leyland cars, 1966-1986 is ready for viewing and comment. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:SamBlob/sandbox/Template for Rover Group cars, 1986-2005 is ready for viewing and comment. I am not sure about the Mini listings in this draft. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the BMH would be better placed with BMC rather than BL. BMC to BMH was really only a name change, whereas BMH to BL was a merger between BMH and Leyland Motor Corporation. GTHO (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaguar acquisition is where the complication of the template comes in, and thus would make a better point at which to split them. For the purposes of the template, the three months between the Jaguar acquisition and the name change to BMH may be considered negligible and the Jaguar/Daimler info can go in the middle template so as not to confuse the first template. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move and split completed. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1968 or British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966?

Should this template be renamed "British Motor Corporation cars, 1952-1966" or are we including BMH cars in this now? GTHO (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Sorry about that. Will change it right away. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, BMC still existed as a subsidiary company of BMH until May 1968, and the brand was still used after BLMC was formed.[1]. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Letdorf. You are not correct, British Motor Holdings is British Motor Corporation - see the article, regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I attempt to edit the renamed template (thanks for that!!) I get taken to the redirected page and cannot access the actual template data. Something is either wrong with the template or with my editing skills. Any ideas please? GTHO (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that the above website (which references Graham Robson's book, The Cars of BMC) is wrong? Do you have a more authoritative source? Letdorf (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, only just became aware of this response, can we continue on the Talk:British Motor Holdings page? You might like to read the page and the article first. cheers, Eddaido (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the name and title within the template and it seems to work now. Please let me know if you have any further trouble. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]