Talk:Reliant Motors

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pronunciation

I removed the "pronounciation" part as it was badly written, completely unsourced, of little importance and didn't fit into neither the History section nor the article as a whole. Wikipedia is not a spelling guide. Not to mention that it wasn't really about pronunciation of the word 'Reliant' but about common mistakes in naming conventions for Reliant cars. Go.pawel (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

Starbug22, please clarify your reasons for this edit, which brought back many errors, removed valid tags (without satisfying them) and which restored unsourced content. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starbug22, let's examine each change made in your single edit that I mentioned above...

You changed "Reliant was the UK's 2nd biggest British-owned car manufacturer." to "Reliant was the UK's biggest British-owned car manufacturer." - with no supporting source
You changed "To reduce weight of vehicles the company decided to..." to "To make their vehicles lights the company decided to..." - which is poorer English
You changed "Reliant Partsworld" to "Reliant partsworld" - which is wrong as it should be capitalised as it's a proper noun
You changed "Heynes changed many models and gave the Robin more luxuries..." to "Heynes changed many models' design by employing designer Andy Plumb, and gave the Robin more luxuries..." - which is poorer English
You changed "...robin would need a redesign to use a different engine if production should continue." to " robin would need a redesign to use a difference engine if production should continue."- more nonsense
You changed all the spellings of "fibre" and "fibreglass" from the British English spellings to the American English spellings of "fiber" and "fiberglass", which contravenes WP:ENGVAR
You changed the section heading from the correctly capitalised "Export markets" to the incorrect "Export Markets"
You changed the capitalisation of "Israel" to "israel" which is incorrect for a country name
You changed "separate chassis" to "seperate chassis" which introduced another spelling mistake
And you restored four paragraphs of "myths" which had, rightly, been removed because they had remained unsourced for at least 2 months, despite the request for sourcing per WP:VER
You used a misleading, even inflammatory, edit summary

Comments please. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starbug22,, I see you fixed some of the problems I raised above. I just went through it all again and fixed some of the others. The main issue remaining from the list above is that of the unreferenced "myths". We can talk about them in a new section. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

licensing

How many times does this article need to mention licensing requirements? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and NPOV section

Starbug22 is insisting that an unsourced, unencyclopedic, and non-NPOV insertion he favors he kept in the article. I'll repeat what I said on his talk page: I removed your edit with the entirely accurate message "rm unsourced and unencyclopedic and non-NPOV section. Take it to talk." Your edit lacks any reliable sources; the single link that it provides does not mention Reliant Motors at all, nor does it include material such as "Naturally, in the UK, this didn't go down well", "needless to say", "derogation", "Ireland", nor "unfortunate consequence". We do not allow original research on Wikipedia; all material must be reliably sourced. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition of Bond Cars Limited

The whole account of the acquisition of Bond Cars Limited is incorrect: Bond was not in liquidation at all, but the acquisition of its parent company, Bradshaw Motor Group, by Dutton Forshaw led to a decision by Dutton Forshaw to dispose of Bond as a going concern. Bond's management attempted to arrange finance for a purchase but one of the companies they approached already owned Reliant, and this led directly to successful negotiations with Dutton Forshaw to purchase Bond Cars. This is detailed in Nick Wotherspoon's excellent book "Lawrie Bond – The Man & The Marque" Nick Wotherspoon Bookmarque Publishing 1993 ISBN 1-870519-16-7, with which the Chairman of Bond Cars, Colonel Gray, collaborated. I intend to edit the text and correct it.

The reference which states that "Triumph entered British Leyland and the deal ended" is also incorrect: Leyland acquired Standard Triumph in 1961, before Bond (then called Sharp's Commercials) even started work on the Equipe. Again, it is recounted in Mr. Wotherspoon's book that the Leyland ownership was influential in Bond securing the licencing agreement, and it was a Leyland Motors director, seconded to Standard Triumph, who gave the instruction to make the agreement.

The deal remained in place until the end of Bond production in 1970, although the Equipe was living on borrowed time anyway, because it was based on the Triumph Herald and Vitesse range, both of which would cease production in 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240 Gardner (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Reliant (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliant Motors NEW Info:

I have been in contact with Andy Plumb (designer of the MK3 Reliant Robin!) and we've been discussing around the use of his images of Reliant Vehicles + Prototypes. This is overall great news to update here and the WIKI. He has given me permission to use the photos but I am just awaiting another response for them. Will eventually upload them when I have them. TheRedRover (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got a response, he's uploading images within his own Copyright and/or other images that he can have permission to. So we shall gain some images in the future hopefully! TheRedRover (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]