Talk:Confederate Motor Company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Alabama may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

How about an image of the motorcycle?

Contents

[edit] Company name

At the company website[1] I see no evidence that the company is doing business as BSA, only as CMC. An article in the NYT confirms the Confederate name[2]. What was the basis for the move? Do they have a new holding company arrangement? That shouldn't govern the article name. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Confederate Motor Company. Extraordinary Machine 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham Speed of America → Confederate Motor Company – article name is for obscure holding company, not the consumer brand still in use. Rename per most common name rule. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as nom. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Companies and brands are two different things. With smaller ones, both may not merit an article right now. What I try and do it create the brand article and then include the company and its history as a heading with sections so that it can be broken out at a future date. This allows a redirect to the portion of the article about the company and the redirect can include the correct categories for the company which avoids other issues. I'll try and do this breakout for the company now since as noted, the article is really about the brand. Vegaswikian 19:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear what your objection is (or if there is one). The request was to move an article to the well-known name, with the lesser-known name a redirect to this article as a result of the move. Thus, one article. I don't find that the holding company has any need for a separate article or even much of a separate treatment; as with most holding companies it seems to exist largely for tax or investment purposes (the reorganized company has a major investor from the Middle East). --Dhartung | Talk 02:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see this as two articles if and when the companies grow. I have modified the article to build a stronger section for the holding company so that it can be split to its own article at some point in time. The investors in the holding company should be inclued in that section. Vegaswikian 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty then. I believe you're overthinking this, though! --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yea, people have that complaint about me ;-) Vegaswikian 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Article has been rewritten for move. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.