Talk:Bristol Cars

Untitled
"The vast majority of parts are in stock, and they will remanufacture or hand-make any other required parts." This is not true. There are many parts even for the V8 car which are no longer available, and Bristol do not offer to "hand make or remanufacture" such parts.

Unavailable parts include such fundamental items such as bumper bars for the 411 and anything earlier.

Dick Turpin.

If you know for certain that this claim isn't true, you should delete it from the article. Actually, the entire 'Image and company philosophy' section is a bit gushing and fanboyish ("The Bristol values are those of tradition, understated quality, and practicality, rather than ostentation or excitement" etc). Maybe I'll do a rewrite some time. James von Mann 22:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe telling someone who came once - 1) one year ago - 2) to just do one edit - to do something will not prove very fruitful. Hektor 19:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spare Parts
The note stating that there are parts for old Bristols that are not available seems to have been written by someone who knows what he is talking about, so I won't directly contradict him. However, about 3 or four years ago, I went to the Kensington showroom in London and happened to meet Tony Crook. We had a very pleasant, long conversation about automobiles in general and the Bristol in particular, and he informed me that they had ALL the parts for EVERY Bristol model ever built. He may have been exaggerating, of course, but I did hear that from the head man himself.98.170.196.210 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2011 administration
I think it's slightly premature to start referring to the company in the past tense - the company is now in administration, so it still exists as a legal entity and will remain so until and unless it is finally wound up. Letdorf (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC).
 * And why have the geographical coordinates of the showroom been removed ?


 * I wont revert again but it does look rather bizarre to me to have the coordinates of the showroom in the article lead. I'm not against having the co-ordinates somewhere but this doesn't strike me as the most elegant or suitable place. Ditto the full show room address.

NPOV
I'm not sure saying a car company that took BMW plans in post-war Germany has "BMW origins" is NPOV. Did they remunerate BMW? It sounds to me like they stole technology and then made BMWs and sold them as Bristols.

I would like to change the section "BMW origins" to something else, but not necessarily "Stolen BMW technology". Any suggestions? Fleetham (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO, "stolen" is too emotive a word for this context. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Bristol acquired the BMW intellectual property following the defeat of Nazi Germany. IMHO, this could be considered as part of the legitimate war reparations after the end of the war. Lots of technology developed by Nazi Germany found its way to the USA, Britain, USSR etc. from 1945 onwards. Bristol Cars was only a tiny part of this. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I don't want to weigh in on the legitimacy of war reparations. But "BMW origins" doesn't reflect the way in which Bristol Cars obtained its technology. Would you agree to naming the section the anodyne "Postwar BMW technology"? Fleetham (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's certainly less emotive than "stolen", but it was actually pre-war BMW models that Bristol based the 400 on. How about "Pre-war BMW designs"? "Technology" seems a bit anachronistic for the period. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC).
 * You're right; that was my mistake. Although I'd prefer something that makes more mention of the manner in which the plans were acquired, I'd agree to "Pre-war BMW designs". If I don't hear anything from you, I'll change the sections names. Fleetham (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content
The history section used to look like this:

This has now been cut down to the following, in my eyes unacceptable version:

I vote for an immediate reversal to the original version.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * it looks like its been cut too much, the original version looks much better and more detailed encyclopedic one -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * could someone explain why so much information has been eliminated ? Hektor (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Because of User:Fleetham. See Share taxi and Lanix for more examples of this user's style. He appears, cuts away nearly all content and replaces it with very little text broken up into very small sections. He then places references for every single sentence, littering the text with superscripts. We are left with a serious of uninformative bullet points and tons of useful info is lost. When the article in question is of interest to others, an edit war usually breaks out. Lanix (with which I am not involved) is currently edit protected due to Fleetham's depradations.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the original section wasn't perfect, quite a lot of content has been removed which in my view should be put back. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that the additions of citations, the insertion of additional information and the correction of factual inaccuracies, is of course a very good thing. However long-standing content should not be bulk deleted just because it is uncited, but citation needed tags can be added where appropriate and content is disputed. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This degree of deletion is unwarranted. Tho there seems to be some debate on it, as I understand it, removal is only for "things likely to be challenged". AFAIK, none of this is. I'd blanket rv to the first version & try to find cites.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert it. The original version is much better. Malcolma (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Can some one write a middle ground? Original was overly long and detailed, but new version is now too short, though I think it does read better. ARDawson (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Fleetham is also working on Chery Automobile, Brilliance Auto, FAW Group and Guangzhou Automobile Group. Everything is gone and replaced by stuff that's barely more than a dictionary definition. He's also been at FAW Hongqi, BYD Company, BYD Electronic and Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co Ltd, although the articles were short before he worked on them, but it's also just small descriptive sentences. He created Hawtai Automobile, another collection of short topics. His additions to other articles on Chinese auto companies don't look too bad, it seems his style for short topics instead of long prose has been intensifying in the last few weeks. Quite frankly, I feel those look like short magazine articles instead of encyclopedic. There's no juice, no detail. --Pc13 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly and have been trying for many months to slow him down and undo some of the deleting. He seems to think that I am alone in disapproving of his style, though, which leads to a lot of stress. See my talkpage for ongoing but unproductive discussion. In any case, I would welcome a reversal and future (actual) improvements.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How's this? I trimmed out what seemed non-essential but tried to keep the rest. In particular, IMO, the names of the directors is important. (I also see the original explains what AFN is, & that got deleted along the way.)  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  17:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, of course, unreferenced content on WP is liable to be deleted, but as Rangoon11 says, it would be less antagonistic to to tag uncited claims (that aren't obvious nonsense) as a first step. And I don't understand the splitting up of perfectly reasonable paragraphs into different sections either, which doesn't enhance the clarity or readability of the article IMHO. Trekphiler's draft looks reasonable, but does need more citations. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

To be clear, I didn't integrate the existing page with my (1st) proposed draft, just took out what was (perhaps) a bit needless. This page as it now is has added some info with cites. (I've also now integrated the new material here.) TBH, I don't think there's anything sufficiently conentious to need removal, even if it's ignorantly fact-tagged (which I wouldn't exclude...) And judging by this... 8o 8o  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

AFN
Since the tag didn't help... What I'm wondering is, what does AFN mean? Is it just the name of the sales agency, or what? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I thought that mentioning them in the previous section took care of the tag, but I guess that the acronym remains unclear. According to A-Z of Sports Cars, the company was founded by Archie Frazer Nash in 1924. It was then "taken over by H.J. Aldington in 1926 when the parent firm became AFN Ltd." According to Standard Catalog of Imported Cars the name was changed in 1927 and Aldington was not involved until later, which is also what appears on Frazer Nash. I suppose that the "A" stands for Archibald?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, it's Archibald: towards the bottom of the page. The new version looks good, btw.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I presumed as much. What happened was, our deletionist friend took it out & didn't notice the (now unexplained) AFN ref below it...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

History copyright
There now are some more paragraphs about Bristol's history in the article, stating that that "has been taken from the Bristol Cars Ltd website, with their kind permission." I'd like to see that permission. I would guess that without this permission, these paragraphs contitute a copyright violation and should not be here. Mark in wiki (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol Cars. 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:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AWQhvfce?url=http://www.caranddriver.com/features/supercar-supermarket-feature-bristol-fighter-page-6 to http://www.caranddriver.com/features/all/2001/supercar_supermarket_bristol_fighter_feature

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bristol Cars. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402121701/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Farewell-Tony-Racing-driver-ex-Bristol-Cars-owner/story-20655608-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Farewell-Tony-Racing-driver-ex-Bristol-Cars-owner/story-20655608-detail/story.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Jason Wharton
The recently added information about the resurrected marque feels like it was written by a PR consultant rather than a Wikipedian, especially the mentions of its proprietor. 80.7.168.14 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Archiving
I propose to set up archiving for this Talk page. Any objections? Thanks DBaK (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Post liquidation (since 2021)
I have added fully researched and sourced content here regarding the IP of Bristol cars, the controversy surrounding it and the future of the company. This keeps getting deleted and / or replaced with unsourced content without explanation, any reason as to why?

Thanks Mustang208 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have to ask about that one. As they're very clear that this sourced information is so wrong and it's so necessary for it to be removed, I'm sure they'll be able to give a convincing reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)