Talk:British Leyland

Rover trademark retained by BMW?[edit]

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.

Your help requested[edit]

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)[reply]

Nationalization[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Could BL qualify for the defunct company infobox or is it just a group of independent companies?

Aeons 07:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BL Category[edit]

Should all the various BL/BMC/Leyland/Rover articles be put in a new Brtish Leyland category? Penrithguy 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BL Logo[edit]

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)[reply]

Tractor[edit]

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)[reply]

Image added. Royalbroil 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image moved into relevant article section - 79.74.41.67 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Leyland. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is www.team.net. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austin 3-Litre[edit]

The statement that the 3-Litre had 'no discernable place in the market' is absurd: it was, very obviously, the direct replacement for the Austin Westminster and its' derivatives, the corporation's flagship models. In fact it was originally intended to carry on the name. 92.25.93.1 (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]