Talk:Rolls-Royce Holdings/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

M Gordon. writer: This page is confusing. I read the 1st paragraph, listing airplane engines and other products. I concluded that the company produces Luxury Cars, Airplane Engines, and additional products. Then I got to the product list and expected to see automobiles listed with airplane engines, gas turbines, and other products. I did not notice the tag that said "go to another page to read about the Luxury Automobile", bocause I know about Rolls-Royce brand airplane engines from watching World War 2 histories and from other experiences, and watched movies and read ads and went to car shows that showed some fancy cars, Rolls Royce brand. I thought of "Rolls Royce is a weird company that makes luxury cars and airplane engines". So, if there are two or more independently owned and operated companies, all of them named "Rolls-Royce", someone who knows alot about the history of Rolls-Royce should add a section that states that situation ( I expect to disambiguate if I get very large differences like "Submarine 'Seaview' in TV programs" and "Seaview Hotel and Condominiums" ). If Rolls=Royce stopped making luxury cars, I'd like to see "made luxury cars until __year__" in the product list, and a link to a page about the cars, so that I could easily conclude that the company no longer makes cars if it stopped making them, or that several businesses have the same name if that's the case. I did not fix the page even though I subsequenlty read another page about 'Bavarian Motor Werken, BMW, makes Rolls-Royce cars and Vickers Corp. used to do so' because 1 want alot facts more than Wikipedia supplies before I conclude "did Rolls Royce sell the car brand to BMW"? Or "did Rolls-Royce sign a contract for another company to produce Rolls-Royce cars"? I'd like someone who knows alot about Rolls-Royce to add "Luxury cars" to the product list, or to make one of the fixes that I'm contending should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.205.113 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't confusing so much as wrong. The engine development in the article is extremley amateur, mixing up a th engine types in the manner of a poorly crafted advertisement rather than a scholarly article.

82.5.153.175 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC) This is confusing - I just ended up on the Rolls-Royce plc page and it mentioned no military engine since the Merlin. So I added a bit - not enough I'll guarantee but a start.

Soarhead77 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have we got two articles, Rolls-Royce and Rolls-Royce plc with a lot of common material. but neither being at all definitive. No mention here for instance of the very important merger with Bristol-Siddeley in 1966. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linuxlad (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 November 2004 (UTC)

No longer applies. Mark83 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

I have reverted several instances of unreferenced and potentially libelous material (concerning corporate corruption and bribery) which were added by the following IP addresses:

This material is not suitable for wikipedia; it should be removed on sight unless sufficient references and corroboration is provided. Other Rolls-Royce articles may be similarly targeted. -- MightyWarrior 14:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this the material that was posted?

"Rolls Royce pays millions of Dollars a year in secret corruption and slush funds to help sell their aero engines to airlines that will be "advised" (or forced!) by those receiving the secret slush funds. Just one example is that Tommy Suharto (son of the ex-Indonesian president) was given about 20 million dollars and a new blue Rolls Royce car by Rolls Royce (before he was jailed for murder!) to force the Indonesian airline Garuda to take the R-R Trent 700 engine on the A330 aircraft they were buying. They got a really bad commercial deal and the follow-on warranty and support was probably the worst any operator had ever had. When Tommy was jailed, Rolls then paid his millionaire friend, Soetikno about 1 million dollars a year! This was supported by the Rolls exec in Indonesia (Dr Mike Gray) because Mike was given "personal benefit" by Soetikno to keep the contract going. Mike even used RR staff to support the bar girl he was "knocking off" when his wife was away.

Lots more to come!

Dick Taylor. (ex Rolls-Royce Chief Service Rep)"

Even if this material is referenced and corroborated, the nature of the material is not suited for inclusion in this entry. Perhaps a brief note about its corporate practices with a link to a separate entry where the details may appear. One sentence should do it. Those who may be interested to learn about corporate corrupt practices may go further but not everyone will be interested. What big business isn't guilty of it. It is old news. FC

Bankruptcy or Receivership?

RR is commonly said to have gone bankrupt in 1971. However, strictly speaking it went into receivership - only individuals and partnerships can go bankrupt - see Bankruptcy article. As an encyclopedia, should we not be using the correct term rather than the commonly-used incorrect one? Any views??--JCG33 16:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Modified the relevant text. Please feel free to be bold and change the text where you consider it necessary – if you do happen to get it wrong, a consensus will hopefully emerge to put it right! -- MightyWarrior 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spellings

On 24 April 07 Wjcollier07 changed lots of spellings from UK to US English. The Manual of Style says that this should not be done unless there is a compelling reason to do so. What reason can there be, particularly as Rolls-Royce is a British company? Some spellings are now plain wrong: eg the Ministry of Defense doesn't exist!

I vote we go back to UK spellings. Any views? --JCG33 21:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt the user in question was acting in good faith, however they showed a glaring misunderstanding/ignorance of policy. I have reverted. Mark83 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox flags

Actually FLAGCRUFT says flags may be used, not should WP:FLAG is far more specific:

  • Flags "[Should] Help the reader rather than decorate - Flag icons are commonly misused as decoration. Adding a country's flag next to its name does not provide additional encyclopedic information in a general context, and is often simply distracting. Wikipedia generally strongly eschews the use of images for decorative purposes, preferring those that provide additional essential information or needed illustration."

Thanks for leaving off the flags. - BillCJ 16:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Many people outside of the UK, and some inside, do not recognise the UK as a country and are confused about it (various surveys, including one conducted by a UK national newspaper in the USA that gave results saying that the UK is in the Middle East). Many people think of the UK as being England, which is obviously incorrect. Stating England instead of the UK would also be incorrect as England is not a sovereign nation. Adding the Union Flag gives people an additional iconic symbol to associate with the UK that is probably far better known than the UK or the United Kingdom. Because we, the writers of the encyclopaedia, know the difference between the UK and England and know where the UK is, does not mean that we should presume (wrongly) that other people also know this information. Looking at the article with a flag in place, it makes it easier for the casual reader to scan the page for info without reading. Visual aids should not be dismissed. Furthermore, a flag will mean a degree of consistency with other companies.Darkieboy236 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Although WP:FLAG isn't an official policy. WP:FLAG states right up at the top: "Flag icons may be appropriate in infoboxes to indicate nationality...." Later it says flag icons shouldn't be repeated in infoboxes, implying that their use in infoboxes is acceptable. Furthermore, as far as governments are concerned (especially the U.S. government), corporations are treated like citizens in most respects, and given most of the same rights, except for the right to vote. As such, corporations have nationalities, and a visual aid to identify it is indeed appropriate.Darkieboy236 17:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Darkieboy236, I would appreciate it if you didn't plagiarize the words of other editors. What you wrote above are my words, that I wrote on Talk:BAE Systems. Please make your own arguments. Thanks. =Axlq 19:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames for Rolls Royce

I am just curious, but does anyone know of the nickname for Rolls Royce aero engines? (ie. GE = generally expensive, P&W = Partly working, RR=? ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefox tao (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Worked at RR PLC Derby for 2 years & didn't know of one! LewisR (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, at Derby its nickname is Royce's everywhere else it is Rolls. Strange lot them Derby people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.154.162 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For a large part of the company's early history Henry Royce was still alive and it would have been inappropriate and impolite for its employees to refer to the company as 'Rolls' when one of the founders was still living and heading the company. Hence 'Royce's' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Engine Maker

In the introduction, RR is referred to as an 'engine maker': Rolls-Royce plc (LSE: RR.) is a British aircraft engine maker. The company has related businesses in the defence aerospace, marine and energy markets. Isn't it erroneous to refer to the company as simply an engine maker. I think it should be re-written, to something like Rolls-Royce is a British industrial conglomerate, concentrating on the manufacture of turbine based energy and propulsion systems. 86.154.74.121 (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion means the same but uses more words, the lead of an article is only a summary of the contents, as it is a summary it uses as few, albeit accurate, words as possible. See Wikipedia:Lead section. The fine details of what the company actually does are given in the main body of the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it's still misleading. For example, the company describes itself as a global business providing integrated power systems for use on land, at sea and in the air on its home page. I know we don't want this to look like an advertisement, but only stating that it is 'an aero engine maker' only shows half the picture and ignores the companies' other areas of business. 86.128.122.167 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree and would suggest something like 'This article is about the aircraft engine and power systems company'. This would not be overly long and would be far more accurate (if still not quite perfect). Does anyone have any thoughts?Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Article title

I feel that the title of this article might be better as simply Rolls-Royce, rather than Rolls-Royce plc, since: (1) that is arguably the 'common name' - on the Rolls-Royce Group plc website they refer to themselves simply as Rolls-Royce [1], as does the media in most coverage, (2) the Wiki page for Rolls-Royce Motor Cars is already named thus, (3) Rolls-Royce Group plc is now far larger than Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, and (4) the official name of the company is Rolls-Royce Group plc [2], not Rolls-Royce plc. I would be grateful for any comments that any other editors might have on this issue.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue is if this article is the primary topic, meaning will it be the main page people are looking for when they type in "Rolls-Royce". Without seeing the particulars from the DAB page (what articles are clicked on the most, which I don't know how to find), I'd have to guess that this is not priamry page selected, and probably not number one either. Several of the articles on the DAB page would all have a claim at using "Rolls-Royce" as their title (legality aside), meaning that no one page clearly is the primary topic. That all means that Rolls-Royce is not available for this page. The alternatives would be Rolls-Royce Group, or Rolls-Royce Group plc. The "plc" is probably not necessary except for DABbing, which isn't needed if we use "Group". - BilCat (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it the 'plc' is use to disambiguate from the earlier nationalised Rolls-Royce Limited iteration of the same company which makes complete sense to me. This article is about the continuation of that company, primarily producing aircraft engines, other Rolls-Royce activities are not mentioned (the car division has been sold on hasn't it?). With a company as large as RR with a very long history there is bound to be a need for disambiguation and from what I can see of the DAB page it is handled pretty well. 'Group' seems to have been added recently and helps to confuse the situation! If the addition of 'Group' to their name is significant in change of activities then we should 'close' this article and start a new one with the new company title. I would imagine that they were just 'plc' originally, it was a 70s thing, even my bank added it! The Rolls-Royce Limited article does need to be turned into a company article as there is far too much emphasis (mainly images) on the cars (lovely as they may be!!). We are probably lacking a List of Rolls-Royce motor cars article where this stuff should rightly be covered IMO. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
There is Rolls-Royce (car), which might be better at List of Rolls-Royce motor cars, as it is primarily that type of ilst. - BilCat (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's just an another image gallery really and does no justice to them, there are probably individual car type articles but they need linking together in a better way, the same as we do the aero engines (navboxes, 'see also' sections etc). I would love to do it but don't know a lot about them but I know somebody that does but he's not a Wikipedian sadly. The question here was about the article title, would like to hear the response from the questioner to the points put forward. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My point was that Rolls-Royce (car) could (ought to) be moved to List of Rolls-Royce motor cars, and the article could be expanded from there. We could move this part of the discussion to that page if you like, as the present company has nothing to do with RR cars. I may just move the page anyway if you don't object, and see what happens with a new title. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Done! User:MilborneOne moved it about an hour ago. - BilCat (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to the discussion about this article, I tend to think Rolls-Royce plc is wrong, not least because the "plc" bit could be added to just about every corporation, taking us away in many cases from commonname. Given the history, there obviously is a need to disambiguate but I do wonder if this shouldn't now be what you come to if you just type Rolls Royce as the first article and then a hatnote to the disambig page? This Rolls-Royce is (a) overwhelmingly bigger, (b) I would argue better known now - certainly when the media says "Rolls Royce", they almost always now mean the aerospace company, (c) the "old" company is now Rolls Royce Motor Cars [3] and (d) it helps people from outside the UK and non-experts to understand the current situation. So I would move for the following:

  • This article to be moved from Rolls-Royce plc to Rolls Royce.
  • Hatnote link to disambig for Rolls Royce from this article.
  • Redirection for Rolls-Royce, Rolls Royce plc, Rolls Royce Group and Rolls Royce to point to this (moved) article.
  • Rolls-Royce Motors to stay where it is.
  • Existing Rolls Royce (the disambig page) to move to Rolls Royce (disambiguation).

It's actually not that big a change other than moving this article to it's common name and reversing the disambig problem. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that "Rolls-Royce" is probably not the clear primary topic by a long shot, per WP guidelines such as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Because of that, the DAB page is at the correct location. "plc" is used as a disambguator; in most companies, the names are generally unique, and thus don't need to be disambiguated. It doens't matter what the current company is known as, or even if the own the legal rights to use the name "Rolls-Royce" by itself - what matters is what people who search for "Rolls-Royce" on WP expect to find if they type in that name. Unless you can prove that by far "Rolls-Royce" is typed in to mean the current company this articel is about, the DAB page is going to stay at Rolls-Royce. You are of course welco to propose the moves be made, but I don't forsee that happening now. - BilCat (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you're just assuming that it's not the primary topic and that the cars are. But if that's so, the cars shouldn't be off at Rolls Royce (car) and this page should be Rolls Royce (something else). Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No. I'm assuming there is no clear primary topic, which is why I support the DAB page remaining where it is. - BilCat (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. I tend to the view one or other should be primary. If it's not the aerospace company, it's the cars. I have to say, Google response counts tend to suggest the latter from a quick check. However, even if things stay the same on disambig, that still leaves the issue of this page name - it probably shouldn't be Rolls-Royce plc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It is tricky, I'm sure if I asked people in the street what the name Rolls-Royce meant to them they would say 'cars', I would say cars and engines (in that order as the cars came first). The DAB page lists RR cars, RR limited and RR plc in that order which I think is correct. I think Bill is right that it's not entirely clear which is the primary target article for the DAB page, it's not crucial as long as all the articles are hat noted so that the reader can get where they want to easily. I think discussion for a change to the DAB links should take place on the DAB talk page (there is a short discussion there already). I would have no objection to this article changing to Rolls-Royce Group or Rolls-Royce Group plc (the company's full current title) with mention in the article of when the name changed (when 'Group' was added) if it was thought completely necessary. Sometimes we use company full titles and sometimes we don't, it allows inconsistency, personally I think we should always use full company titles, there might be a guideline somewhere on it, WP:COMPANY perhaps? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Product Faults

To look at this article,it appears to be written by the publicity department of Rolls Royce. Is there any reference to product faults from Rolls Royce or does the company have a perfect production record? If anyone knows of Qantas QF32 incident, and lawsuit following, there are questions needed. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

HP ties?

Title says it all. I think HP owns them now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.253.43 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

HP does not own Rolls-Royce Plc - it is an entirely independent company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.14 (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Quantas A380 issues with Trent 900 engine

Two WP articles (one on A380 and one on Trent 900 engine) are not reflected or mentioned in this corporate page,nor do I find mention of Quantas. Did RR PLC not have special reserves to cover the legal outcome (2006-2011) ?

The Bloomberg article on the settlement suggests that this was no minor issue: Rolls-Royce Reaches Engine Settlement With Qantas

Should there not be See Also if there are no links to the relevant Wp articles in the text ?

This corporate article may deserve "advert" scrutiny by an experienced editor.

G. Robert Shiplett 15:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

Bit contradictory to say "British multinational" in the first sentence, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganulu (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Its main factory and headquarters are in Britain, so it's British. It has international investors and branches in many countries, so it's multinational. The Multinational corporation article is vague, so there is a lot of leeway in using that word. I am not sure, as globalization can have confusing effects. TGCP (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move buidhe 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


Rolls-Royce Holdings → Rolls-Royce plc – "Holdings" doesn't seem to be part of the company name, as it refers to itself as Rolls-Royce plc. See legal information on the company website here. Elshad (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 11:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose This seems a bit more complicated. The ordinary shares are listed under Rolls-Royce Holdings plc on the London Stock Exchange so that seems to be the ultimate holding company. See [4]. It appears that Rolls Royce plc is used as the principal trading entity. Dormskirk (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rolls-Royce_Holdings/Archive_1&oldid=1197473468"