Talk:Taylor Woodrow

Taylor Woordrow Construction
This is a clumsily written article! There may well be a company called Taylor Wimpey, but there still is a construction company called Taylor Woodrow, it is part of the Vinci Group! Ironically all anyone had to do was just look at the website link! http://www.taylorwoodrow.com/ Pandaplodder (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The sale of Taylor Woodrow Construction to Vinci is mentioned in the section headed up "Private housing revival". The main Taylor Woodrow business merged with George Wimpey as clearly explained in this article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
Someone needs to write something about the merge with George Wimpey, announced to the city on 26 March 2007.

You write "In March 2007, the company announced plans for a £6 billion nil-premium merger with George Wimpey, likely to be called Taylor Wimpey and dominated by Wimpey."

Actually, Taylor Woodrow shareholders will hold 51% of the company.


 * Sign your comments Talk to Magibon 01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision Proposals
I have expanded the brief history and this is hopefully regarded as more comprehensive and better sourced. Following this I propose that all the remaining text below “History” be now deleted the reasons being:

UK Housebuilding and Taylor Woodrow Construction both contain inaccuracies, details that are very minor, and the relevant facts are now integrated chronologically in the History Section. North America does have information not included elsewhere but no other overseas operation is given separate treatment – the middle east was just as important in its day. As was the commercial property division. Head office – totally irrelevant Leadership – this overlaps with the article on Francis Taylor and should be transferred there and integrated Logo – irrelevant in the scheme of things

Additionally, I propose that the separate articles on Taylor Woodrow Construction and Taylor Woodrow Homes be deleted. I cannot see the point of having separate articles on individual subsidiaries, particularly when they hardly say anything, and contain errors.

The opening link in Taylor Woodrow to Taylor Woodrow Construction can then be deleted.

This would then leave a compact company history, with bibliography and references, but without duplicate articles on subsidiaries. There would remain a separate biographical article on Frank Taylor.

Incidentally, I know Dormskirk likes to keep the little company boxes but it does get out of date and the web site link no longer works. Bebington (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the expansion of the text that you have undertaken is very helpful. Specific comments I would make in response to your proposals:


 * I would keep the infobox - it is part of the criteria to achieving a 'good article' although I agree some of the old financial figures could be deleted.
 * The separate article on Taylor Woodrow Construction contains some very important information on major projects (in line with other major international contractors). If you are going to transfer that information to this article then please be careful not to lose any of it or the associated references.
 * I agree that the article on Taylor Woodrow Homes adds nothing to the topic
 * I think the logos add colour and context to the article (the George Wimpey article is a good example where it done well) but I certainly agree that having descriptive text about logos is over the top.

I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Dormskirk. Re TW Construction, the list of contracts was extremely unbalanced and rested heavily on the last ten years, a period in which TW was running down its construction. Obvious omissions were Calder Hall nuclear power station and the Port Rashid docks. I have added some extra contracts to the main body of the text, including three from the TWC article. I hope you now feel that the separate TW Construction article can be deleted. Bebington (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki policies require you to merge material not to delete properly sourced text - much of the material you have removed so far was unsourced so that is fine. I do not agree that the existing TWC list of contracts is unbalanced - it has been properly built up over a period of time so it needs merging in accordance with wiki policies. It may actually be better to leave the TWC article where it is but I still agree the TW Homes article adds nothing. There is also the Taywood Homes article which is completely unsourced and therefore adds nothing. Dormskirk (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to get into an argument but I will address the content of the Taylor Woodrow Construction article just one more time. The list of major contracts cannot be considered anything but unbalanced. TWC was formed in 1937. There are 9 contracts mentioned of which 6 are in the last 2000s. There is only one contract pre-1990 which is about the point that TW began to move its priorities away from construction. The list does not mention TW's involvment in the Mulberry Harbour, the largest ever wartime construction project; it does not list the notorious Grounduts Scheme; it does not list Calder Hall, the world's first commercial nuclear power station (or the other nuclear stations that followed; nor does it include the then largest British overseas contract at Dubai. I have included all these in the main Taylor Woodrow article plus some of those listed under Taylor Woodrow Construction. I have left out some of those 2000s contracts which do not stand out, e.g. a railway ticket hall. Incidentally, links 1, 7 and 9 on TW Construction no longer work whcih indicates the dangers of articles solely sourced from web pages. All the sources that I have used are from permanent records including the two-volume history of Taylor Woodrow which is not even referred to in the article.

I hope that on reflection you will agree with me or possibly ask for a second opinion - I am still unsure as to how these things work in Wiki land. Regarsd  Bebington (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. If you look, for example, at the article on Bechtel or Balfour Beatty you will see they have a proper listing of major projects. If you want to merge the articles I will help you but I think you first need to build up a Taylor Woodrow Construction Section in the Taylor Woodrow article which lists (and references) the key projects. Dormskirk (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So be it. I am happy that the Taylor Woodrow article now has the right balance between its various activities. I will leave the Taylor Woodrow Construction site alone. Regards  Bebington (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. As you will have seen I have now expanded the list of major projects in both articles to include the projects you pointed out were missing. We can now either delete the list from the Taylor Woodrow article or remove the TWC article. Which do you prefer? Dormskirk (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the Taylor Woodrow Construction article. I think the list of major contracts still has too many recent contracts (e.g. the ticket hall) compared with earlier periods, e.g the giant Butterwell open cast contract or some of the other middle east contracts but it may as well be left as is. I assume that you will also remove the Taylor Woodrow Homes article. Regards  Bebington (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do Dormskirk (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have been working on London Brick which was very patchy. I have a query there re the opening. Having done a number of these buiding companies' histories over the last few weeks I have noticed that they are heavily dependent on web sites (which often disapear) and rarely seem to use permanent published histories. Bebington (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Add Ronan Point
The article mentions many projects in the heading "Major projects undertaken by Taylor Woodrow Construction". However, it doesn't mention the Ronan Point tower, which is famous because it partially collapsed (killing 4) and had to be demolished. The deficiencies in that building were largely related to design -- perhaps Taylor Woodrow had no responsibility for that. But there were also major deficiencies in the construction ("failure to build as designed"). The article on Ronan Point refers to "Taylor Woodrow Anglian," which may or may not be the same as Taylor Woodrow Construction; but if any part of Taylor Woodrow is to get credit for successful projects, Wikipedia NPOV requires that notable failures should also be mentioned. Oaklandguy (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Taylor Woodrow. 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/20090208193847/http://www.bromleyhospitals.nhs.uk:80/patients/about-bromley-hospitals-trust/our-hospitals/the-princess-royal-university-hospital/fact-sheet/ to http://www.bromleyhospitals.nhs.uk/patients/about-bromley-hospitals-trust/our-hospitals/the-princess-royal-university-hospital/fact-sheet/

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 18:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Taylor Woodrow. 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/20120307231514/http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=778 to http://www.engineering-timelines.com/scripts/engineeringItem.asp?id=778
 * Added tag to http://www.neimagazine.com/journals/Power/NEI/August_2009/attachments/uk_consortia1b.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211103527/http://www.mfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Stadium/0%2C%2C1%2C00.html to http://www.mfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Stadium/0%2C%2C1%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415000524/http://bdp.com/Projects/By-Name/P-Z/Royal-Albert-Hall/ to http://www.bdp.com/Projects/By-Name/P-Z/Royal-Albert-Hall/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091106111330/http://www.assemblywales.org/sen-home/sen-projecthistory/sen-project-history-subpage/sen-project-history-2009 to http://www.assemblywales.org/sen-home/sen-projecthistory/sen-project-history-subpage/sen-project-history-2009
 * Added tag to http://www.arup.com/unitedkingdom/newsitem.cfm?pageid=8497

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) 04:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed updates of the Taylor Woodrow Page
Change to the current title:

Old: Taylor Woodrow was one of the largest housebuilding and general construction companies in Britain. It was listed on the London Stock Exchange and was a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index until its merger with rival George Wimpey to create Taylor Wimpey on 3 July 2007.

New: Taylor Woodrow is the civil engineering division of VINCI Construction UK which forms part of VINCI, a world leader in concessions and construction. The Taylor Woodrow brand draws on the heritage of a company founded in 1921. Whilst they're part in VINCI Construction UK enables them to draw on the strength and unity of a diverse range of business streams, they tent to work closely together. Taylor Woodrow are a leading player in the civil engineering and infrastructure sector, delivering world class infrastructure projects such as the iconic King’s Cross Western Concourse. Working across the rail, highways and energy sectors, they have a customer-focused approach and thrive on applying their expertise to deliver complex, multi-disciplinary, engineering-led projects.
 * content is blatant marketing and totally unacceptable in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Change of Logo

Change of old Taylor Woodrow Logo to new Taylor Woodrow logo as per previous change today.

Taylor Woodrow section

Industry Old: House building | new: civil engineering and infrastructure sector Key People: Remove Revenue: Remove Operating income: Remove New income: Remove Number of employees: Remove Parent: Old: Taylor Wimpey New: VINCI construction UK Website: www.taylorwoodrow.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Freeman - Taylor Woodrow (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The changes proposed above would remove much of the mention of the old company, so would be unacceptable in the form proposed. At one stage the new company was covered by a separate article Taylor Woodrow Construction, but the content got merged back into Taylor Woodrow.  There is some discussion above.  There may be some scope for separating again, or otherwise this article could be restructured to cover both.  Some indication of the history is given at http://www.taylorwoodrow.com/about-us/our-heritage.html . --David Biddulph (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would be OK with separating out Taylor Woodrow Construction (as per Taylor Woodrow Construction) although there was a heated discussion in 2010 and I (reluctantly) agreed at that time that it be merged into the Taylor Woodrow article. There is no doubt that for much of the history of Taylor Woodrow it was primarily a house builder. Dormskirk (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that some of the proposed text is an obvious copyright violation from http://www.taylorwoodrow.com/about-us/index.html . As others have said, the language is too promotional to be used in Wikipedia, but in any case it can not be used without going through the processes defined at WP:Donating copyrighted material. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)