Talk:Lendlease

Fair use rationale for Image:LLlogo.gif
Image:LLlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lend Lease Shopping Centres
I'm willing to be corrected but the compliments slip I have shows this division as Lend Lease Retail -if someone more knowledgeable would like to check and make the change please--AndyCPrivate (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I note that Lendlease Project Management & Construction, Lend Lease Residential Development, Civil & Civic and Valemus have all been merged into the article. While merger proposals should really be discussed on the talk page in advance, I think in this instance it has worked well given the previous proliferation of Lend Lease articles. My only thought, would however whether it would not be better to split out the material on C. W. Bovis prior to acquisition by Lendlease in 1999. The logic would be that C. W. Bovis was not acquired until some 40 years after Lendlease was founded. I would propose that the article would be titled "C. W. Bovis" and would only cover the period up to acquisition in 1999 (notwithstanding the fact that the Bovis brand continued to be used for some years afterwards). Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I note that the merging of these have now been reversed. However, in the process the extensive subsequent work to improve the article(s) including the addition of additional projects and additional referencing has been lost. I would suggest that if these articles are to remain separate Lendlease Project Management & Construction should become C. W. Bovis and only cover the period up to 1999. Also Lend Lease Residential Development should revert to the name Crosby Homes and only cover the period up to 2005. In any case discussion should take place here. Dormskirk (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support merging - most of the separate articles were not significantly different enough from Lendlease to warrant a separate article, and the work that was done during and following the merge resulted in a better overall result than the set of separate articles prior to the merge. I don't disagree with potential un-merging of one or two items like C. W. Bovis. -M.nelson (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Happy to go with that solution. Dormskirk (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Domskirk and M Nelson - to comply with wikipedia guidelines I am noting that I am a paid employee of Lendlease for the purpose of these edits. I note that absolutely all my edits were extraordinarily reverted by User:Homeltraix. Let me explain my edits which I have sought to comply with declared paid editiing procedures as much as possible. These articles were significantly outdated, often being unedited stubs from circa 2006 and unimproved since that time, additionally, the core Lendlease page was left with outdated information (also reverted by that user) such as old chairperson, old employee count, no current history reflective of the latest structures, CEO and projects. Additionally, Lendlease simply doesn't operate with the pages which were so called 'subdivisions' anymore, transformation of the company has been occuring for many years, but recent referencable articles in the SMH will reflect the merge of these "subdivisions" into operating as regions (such as Australia, Asia, Americas and Europe) which was reflected in my edits (see SMH "Lendlease cuts staff as it launches roadmap to future"). I don't wish to break policy and my desire as a long term contributer to wikipedia and employee directed to update the page was to result in a high quality reflection of accurate information without being seen as bias towards simple primarily sourced company messaging. On the merging of Valemus and Civil and Civic, these companies are integral parts of the history of Lendlease and I would otherwise class as stubs. They were wholly absorbed by the company and their history is reflected in the companies official records and histories, referencing projects as past LL projects. RugbyFuture (talk) 10:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for that explanation. It's very helpful. Dormskirk (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There was nothing extraordinary about my reverting of the merges that were not discussed. Editors are entitled to make bold merges without discussing per WP:BRD, but shouldn't complain when reverted. There is a process for merges that are likely to be controversial. While the loss of some improvements is regrettable, I wasn't going to go through edit by edit and work out what had been added. For these articles to be merged, the WP:MERGE process needs to be followed. This will require the appropriate merge to and merge from hatnotes to be placed on all articles involved, something that hasn't yet happened. Homeltraix (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi homeltraix. Noting the extraordinary reversion was because I didn't believe in good will that these untouched page stubs would be controversial considering their lack of recent edit history and innacuracy, thanks for your advice, I will keep it in mind in the future. RugbyFuture (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tags now added. Many thanks to all those that have contributed so far: a consensus seems to be emerging. Dormskirk (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Civil & Civic: Oppose, existed a decade before Lendlease
 * Lend Lease Communities: Oppose (partial), retain pre-2001 text and rename article Delfin Limited, merge post-2001 text into Lendlease
 * Lendlease Project Management & Construction: Oppose (partial), retain pre-1999 text and rename Bovis Construction (not C. W. Bovis) per its Companies House record, merge post-1999 text into Lendlease
 * Lend Lease Residential Development: Oppose (partial), retain pre-2005 text and rename Crosby Homes, merge post-2005 text into Lendlease
 * Lend Lease Retirement Living: Merge into successor Allity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeltraix (talk • contribs) 20:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Homeltraix only the aged care section of the retirement business was sold to Archer capital. Independabt retirement living villages were retained in the business and now make up the retirement living business unit. RugbyFuture (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Valemus: Oppose, if it were to be merged anywhere it would be its parent, Bilfinger, it was never part of Lendlease. Homeltraix (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would work. It keeps all the pre-acquisition material separate. Dormskirk (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

NPOV/NOTADVERT
This article feels awfully promotional. While Hatgreg has done a better job than most paid editors, namely in the controversies section, the main article is still packed full of editorialism, unspecific language ("recently") and puffery - constant mentions of "communities", listing projects of questionable relevance (is it normal for construction companies' pages to list the majority of their work?)

Nothing at all against Hatgreg - like I say, they've done more than most paid editors. Feel like the article could do with some work that I'm not confident undertaking myself, though - maybe a more experienced editor could add the "this article reads like a promotion" banner, and make some changes? Couruu (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have trimmed mention of "communities", although it seems to be the name of one of their divisions so it is difficult to remove it completely. Lists of projects are normal for most construction companies (see Bilfinger and Balfour Beatty for example. Arguably such lists are more useful and factual than much of the puffery than we see in company articles. Please feel free to trim if you see more puffery. Dormskirk (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the insight and trimming, much appreciated. Couruu (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)