Talk:Holt Manufacturing Company

Pre-GA Review
Mindful that there is a proposed DYK entry for this article, and that the main article contributor would like to push it to GA status in the near future, I have been doing an informal review to get it ready for its (possible) Main Page appearance. The following notes indicate areas that may need attention:

This is rather short, considering the length of the article. Three or four paragraphs, summarising more of the article, would be better. bp -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lede paragraph

(1) Some of the headings are in a verb-first style, which I think is unusual for WP.
 * Headings/Structure

(2) The heading levels in places may impede the reader's progress through the page. The headings need assessing against the content to give the best subdivision of the article.

(1) None of the images is yet provided with 'alt' text (see WP:ALT) bp -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Images

(2) Some of the captions are quite long bp -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the links have issues (see toolserver results). bp -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * External links

There are bound to be other areas for improvement, but these sprang to mind initially.

EdJogg (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I am using the appropriate convert template for U.S. tons to metric tons. Murray section refers to a tractor weighting 18000 lbs 18000 lbs. I have used 18 ST 18 ST elsewhere. Please take a look. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the convert templates get in the way of the text. For example:
 * "design and building of 10 short tons (9.1 t), 5 short tons (4.5 t), and a 2.5 short tons (2.3 t) artillery tractors"
 * might read better as :
 * "design and building of 10 ton, 5 ton and 2.5 ton artillery tractors (approximate weights: 10 short tons (9.1 t), 5 short tons (4.5 t), 2.5 short tons (2.3 t))".
 * Where "n ton" is used as a classification rather than a measurement it should be possible to be more flexible. The convert templates are intended to make life easier, but provided the same information is shown, its format can be different.
 * If the tractors were marketed as 18000lb, that's what we should use here (and it's easy to convert from kg to tonnes! -- I have no idea how many pounds there are in a ton (short or long)!)
 * EdJogg (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The earlier tractor models were named based on the horsepower, e.g., "Holt 45." Later on they went with the weight, e.g., "Holt 5 Ton." Given that it's a model name, I think applying the convert template in this context is both confusing and distracting. I think I should remove it from instances where the text is referring to a brand name. Perhaps we should add some text about the increase in horsepower generally and how the models were named. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In "Company origins" there are a few sentences which sit awkwardly in the narrative (see inline comments). The text flows nicely discussing the tractor development and evolution of the company, and then there is a 'random' sentence about the family. While these are (mostly) located in the correct place chronologically, they really 'jar' when the section is read. I'm not sure what the solution is (may be best placed as a separate paragraph -- which I have done -- but will need more text to avoid single-sentence paragraphs) but their re-location elsewhere will improve the readability of the prose. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disrupted flow

After the description of Old Betsy, there is nothing to say how the steam tractors evolved from the prototype. The narrative goes straight from Old Betsy to "Holt's tractors were popular...", without indicating that more had been built. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Missing history

C L Best left the company in "New Best competitor re-emerges", but doesn't join the company until much further down the page! (see "Competitor acquisition") I think a bit of re-juggling is required. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * C L Best chronology


 * Thanks for the keen eye on the details. I'm going to let it sit for a day or two so I can better see the trees in the forest, and then I'll fix these.-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this: instead of a chronological flow through all the company's history, why not group significant items together? Perhaps like this--
 * company origins & history (company formation, management, mergers, economics, growth, post-war challenges)
 * competition, patents, and legal disputes (C.L. Best, Lombard, Hornsby)
 * tractor models, engines, growth (main article: Holt tractors)
 * military usage (contracts, production, economic impact)
 * Did I leave anything out?
 * -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems like a sensible split. Can't be certain you haven't missed anything, but it looks OK for a start. Where would 'family' information go? (eg deaths of parents?) -- EdJogg (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we should move it to Benjamin Holt's article. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pre-DYK Review
The article has seen many changes since I started doing my 'review', and it is the better for it. There are still some areas requiring clarification. If possible, these need addressing before the article appears as a Main Page 'DYK' (scheduled for 23 hours from 'now' (12:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)) ).

This works well up to the brothers buy-out. The following paragraph mentions 'the company', yet in the preceding paragraphs, no less than three company names are shown in bold. Can we replace 'the company' by 'the Holt Manufacturing Company' ? I think this is all that's needed to bring the narrative back on track. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Company origins


 * Fixed items marked by you. Think this resolves everything outstanding for DYK. Thanks for the big assist and encouragement. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just about done here. I got a bit lost in the Patents and Trademarks section, so you might want to revisit that after you've had a little break. Otherwise, just the 'ALT' text to fix in the images. (See WP:ALT) This is a tricky skill to master, but I'll give it a go.
 * The DYK should bring in a few new editors, and fresh pairs of eyes, after which I suggest you get someone to do a more formal peer review before pushing for GA. -- EdJogg (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Austrian use
I seem to remember from Band of Brigands: the story of the first men in tanks that the Austro-Hungarians were actually the first to use Holt tractors to tow guns. I'll try to check out the details tonight. Drop me a message if I forget. David Underdown (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Hungarians built the Holt tractor under license. I added a note to this effect in the article. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is what I remembered reading:

"The Holt Company had begun exporting around the world. In 1913 the Hungarian Franchis agent Dr Leo Steiner had offered the Caterpillar-Holt tractor as a heavy artillery hauler to the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian war offices. Berlin stuck to horses.But the Kuk Kriegministerium placed order for a number of caterpillars to make mobile its outsize Skoda 305-mm siege mortars, broken down into three components – gun, mount, and portable foundation – hauled along in a road train.In August 1914 every Holt in the dual monarchy was commandered for military service.  Several were assigned to their German allies, towing artillery for the great assault in the West."

- p. 48, Christy Campbell, Band of Brigands: the Extraordinary Story of the First Men in Tanks, 2008 [2007], Harper Perennial, London, ISBN 9780007214600


 * There's also an image of Holt tractor being used by the US army in Mexico, the only credit is to the Library of Congress, so it's probably PD, and may already be online in their collection. David Underdown (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, this seems to be the image http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@1(cph+3b35606)). I htink it should be PD as published in the US in 1916, but I'm no image expert, the Library of Congress page says "No known restrictions on publication".  David Underdown (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good find. I see there are some other images of Holt tractors on WP Commons. The image has a suitable number of images already IMO. I'll add a gallery later on. Per the discussion about Merger below, I think the tractor-specific information will migrate there at some point. (Anyone want to take this on?) -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Holt vs. Best
These two individuals and their companies appeared to be bitter rivals. I sure would love to know more about this competition. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Just discovered this stub topic on the Holt tractor. I don't believe there's enough information forthcoming to justify a separate article just about the tractors. The topic is substantially well-covered in this article without being overlong.-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The Holt tractor as artillery tractor as used in WWI is a historically important item in itself and needs expansion. The Holt Company itself is likewise a historically important item in itself as one of the progenitors of Caterpillar. The fact that the tractor article is fairly short at present does not mean they should be merged, it means the tractor article needs more detail. I would recommend that "Holt tractor" be renamed "Holt artillery tractor" as that is what the article is really about. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree -- Much as what Rod said (although I reached this conclusion before seeing his reply). It should be looked at from the other direction. This is an opportunity to move some of the technical details about tractor models and developments from this article. If you look at the 'What links here' for Holt tractor you will see that there are numerous equipment-based articles that are better served linking to the article about the tractor than the company which made it. There is plenty of information to support both articles, and having a separate article allows better categorisation (the company article does not belong in category "World War I military equipment of the United Kingdom", for example). Incidentally, Holt artillery tractor already exists as a redirect; using this name would preclude mention of any agricultural use -- would we want to do that? -- EdJogg (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. I think the name should remain "Holt tractors", and include information on the artillery tractor (which was largely a single model, the Holt 75hp.) Anyone want to tackle carving out the tractor-specific info and migrating it to the other article? I'm not especially an aficionado of tractors, just have a particular interest in the Holt Company, so I might not be the best person for the task. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

re: Foundation date, chronology of entities
The chronology of the succession of companies and legal entities discussed in the "Company Origins" section is confusing seems to be incorrect.

Although Holt Manufacturing Company was legally incorporated in 1892, that does not seem to be the correct foundation date. The picture used in the infobox is a logo released by Holt itself and shows a foundation date of 1883. Harte (1902), Orleman (2006) and the current website of Stockton Wheel Service (2005) also support the 1883 and Stockton Wheel Service as the predecessor company. I have made some basic edits to reflect this reality.

There is a lot of what seems to be extraneous detail in this section (marriages, for example) Unfortunately at least two of the cited sources in this section are not online and one online source isn't loading, so I can't put context around what's in the article based on the cited sources. I'll do further research to try to clean up the inconsistencies and present a more clear timeline that can be substantiated by more than one source. Ch Th Jo (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Renault Tanks
This reference is slightly incorrect. Holt tractors made in Budapest (Austria-Hungary) formed the basis of the German A7V tanks during WWI, but not the Renault. Holt tractors purchased from the USA were adapted to become the French Schneider and Saint-Chamond tanks, but the Renault was a completely new design.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits 18 April, 2015.
This article was already pretty mediocre, but the situation has deteriorated badly as a result of recent changes by Btphelps. I have removed a lengthy paragraph attributed to a work by Albert Mroz. Mr. Mroz's book is seriously flawed, so much so that it is considered a laughing stock. Some of the claims he makes are delusional, and even if the par in question were anything approaching correct, it would have no bearing on the Holt Manufacturing Company's activities. I'm going to adjust or remove those changes of Btphelps's that either do not improve or actually damage the article. I trust I shan't encounter any pointless obstructionism. Hengistmate (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Early military uses.
"The concept of a half-wheeled, half-tracked vehicle appeared in the United States around 1916. The Holt company was one of the earliest manufacturers, which attached its crawling tread mechanism to an ordinary 4x2 truck of about three tons' capacity, replacing the rear drive axle.[49]"

This has two possible interpretations, neither of which is entirely true. It's also a direct lift from F. Crismon, U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles. Removing it till something better comes along.

Also: this account ignores the 45hp "Baby" Holt, which was purchased by Schneider at the same time as Britain ordered its first 75s and led directly to the French tanks, the Schneider and Saint-Chamond. Hengistmate (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Holt Manufacturing Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100721040841/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/company-activities-management/company-locations/13937416-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-locations/13937416-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091204121517/http://www.historicroadways.co.uk:80/s-007.htm to http://www.historicroadways.co.uk/s-007.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Holt Manufacturing Company. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ohe.cat.com/cda/layout?m=85360&x=7
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stocktonwheel.com/about_us.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091111140403/http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/02/16/features/1_vintage_080216.txt to http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/02/16/features/1_vintage_080216.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719235759/https://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=2 to http://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091104113151/http://www.techdirections.com/Holt.pdf to http://www.techdirections.com/Holt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719235829/https://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=6 to http://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017162514/http://www.kipnotes.com/AgriculturalMachinery.htm to http://www.kipnotes.com/AgriculturalMachinery.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719235730/https://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=3 to http://www.acmoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=35&limit=1&limitstart=3
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-brands/holt/holt-tractors.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/unarmored-halftracks/unarmored-half-tracks.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.holtcat.com/about_us/a_heritage_of_innovation.aspx

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) 06:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

"One of the most important military vehicles of all time."
E.D. Swinton said no such thing. This is a quote from Military Transport of World War I by Chris Ellis & Denis Bishop, Blandford Press, 1976, p. 136. It is the opinion of the authors, and is not attributed to Swinton. This source http://www.landships.info/landships/softskin_articles/Holt_15_ton.html is largely lifted from Ellis & Bishop and contains the relevant passage. This source http://www.warmuseum.org/calendar-of-events/2014/11/9/war-war-i-meuse-argonne-artillery-exhibit-opening simply parrots the misquote, which, thanks to Wikipedia, is widespread. (This museum's Holt tractor is a 10 Ton Artillery Tractor, a different vehicle from the 75hp or 120hp which played a part in the creation of the military tank.) Hengistmate (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)