Talk:Carillion

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

Name[edit]

Anybody know where Carillion plc derived its rather silly name?

A peal of bells is a carillon, but it's a word that is frequently misspelled and mispronounced 'carillion' by the ignorant.

Is that what happened here? Mark Hasker (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it came from a brand consulting firm but I don't know where they got it from Dormskirk (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) .Trish pt7 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Carillion Rail article[edit]

It has been proposed that the Carillion plc and Carillion Rail articles are merged. I think this is a good idea and have lifted the relevant material from the Carillion Rail article and inserted it into the Carillion plc operations section Dormskirk (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a while back.Trish pt7 (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:YAS Hotel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:YAS Hotel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yas Marina Hotel by Rob Alter.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

[[

File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]]


An image used in this article, File:Yas Marina Hotel by Rob Alter.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Carillion. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carillion. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carillion. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name (again)[edit]

I vaguely recall that the reason for the name change was that the company had been involved in the controversial M11 link road and/or Newbury bypass civil engineering projects and the name "Tarmac" had become a toxic brand. Does anyone have information that would support this? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Construction News the new name "came from nowhere"! Money well spent on the consultants, then... The name change was also discussed in The Independent. JezGrove (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidation issues[edit]

Just for editors who are making changes to this article in light of Carillion's anticipated entry into compulsory liquidation and are changing the tense of the article from present to past: while it is correct that the provision of private sector services by Carillion is now very much in the past tense, its public sector services are continuing and, under English law, a company in liquidation continues to exist until, generally, three months after the presentation of a final account of the liquidation to the company's creditors and the courts (section 205 Insolvency Act 1986: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/205) at which point they are dissolved. So Carillion as a company (i.e. corporate entity) in liquidation will persist for a while yet. LGF1992UK (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, but with a different take: Carillion only uses the past tense throughout the entire article when the Registrar of Companies (England and Wales), or (more likely) one of the Deputy Registrars of Companies (England and Wales) acting for and on behalf of the former and the authority of the same, officially dissolves each and every one of those listed and involved Carillion companies in the compulsory liquidation process, as in this case of the four separate but linked British compulsory liquidation process for BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International, société anonyme (SA) (Luxembourg), Luxembourg City, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) [1][2][3][4], which were all officially dissolved in August 2013 (24 August 2013 and 31 August 2013, respectively). ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no automatic "default" dissolution by the way as such, although the Registrar [of Companies] shall (i.e., must) dissolve in accordance of and as provided for by the Companies Act [1986] as I can see, which you have helpful provided herein for reference of course. ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carillion is still a company until the fat lady sings, and she's only just clearing her throat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.94.142 (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senior figures[edit]

The Board deserve naming. Midgley (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Midgley (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should be named and shamed!05:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The board (mainly non-executive directors) are currently named in the article. In light of the Financial Conduct Authority's investigation into Carillion's financial announcements dating back to December 2016, perhaps the article section should be expanded to include other directors of the company during the past 13 months or so? Companies House records list the following as Carillion plc directors during this time:

  • Richard John Adam (resigned 31 December 2016)
  • one-time CEO Richard Howson (resigned 10 July 2017)
  • Zafar Khan (FD, 1 January - 10 September 2017)
  • Ceri Powell (resigned 31 March 2017).

Such a listing may potentially exonerate recently appointed directors, and be more inclusive of those potentially covered by the FCA probe. Paul W (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paul W. I added the board section, and agree that it should be expanded. Have started Zafar Khan), and will start the other two later, if someone else does not first. Edwardx (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Adam developing in my sandbox. Paul W (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of major projects[edit]

The project listing has been expanded to include numerous projects not "involving Carillion", but undertaken by acquired businesses before they were part of Carillion (including projects from the 19th century). I would suggest this list be reverted back to the one in the article before the liquidation was announced, and only covering projects undertaken as Carillion. Paul W (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now largely fixed by User:Black Kite. Thanks. Paul W (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subsidiaries still used in 2017[edit]

I think this list should be removed: Carillion had some 300 subsidiaries according to Companies House: this seems to be merely a selection and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is clear that wikipedia should not be used as a directory. Dormskirk (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - onerous list adding no value to main article that couldn't be achieved by simply stating the Carillion group has a complex structure with numerous subsidiaries and joint ventures. Paul W (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK.Trish pt7 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of board of directors[edit]

@Toter Alter Mann: The board of directors information was removed in this edit on the ground that its inclusion is 'pillorying' the individuals. I don't see how this is an attack on individuals it just stating facts. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the removal of this section. This is an encyclopaedia; we do not merely state facts without having a purpose of improving readers' understanding, and IMO no such purpose is served by simply listing the directors. Mentioning certain directors and managers in the context of (for example) allegations of culpability, when made in WP:RS, would be a very different matter. Harfarhs (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Naming the directors gives readers a better understanding company and how it fits into the broader economy, especially if the directors are notable in their own right. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; what we have in this section are merely names and dates with no indication of relevance. Harfarhs (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree with Jonpatterns. Background on several of the directors has already been given by Times, Sky, etc in coverage of Carillion's liquidation, with some (Howson and Green in particular) subject to wider criticism. While the FCA and FRC enquiries continue, I think a simple listing of all directors during the past year treats them all equally and makes no judgement on their culpability. Paul W (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to "treat" them at all except when mentioned in news by RS. Harfarhs (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right there is no need to treat the board in a particular way because of liquidation, they should be included anyway (at least the chairperson and CEO). From what I can see other companies list 'key people', though not often non-executive directors (Tesco, Serco, Interserve). I've moved the board to operations, maybe this will make it more neutral. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure - liquidation as distinct section?[edit]

Currently, Carillion's liquidation is a subsection of History, but as the impact sections have grown, I think we have reached a point where Liquidation can be a distinct section, allowing creation of some new sub-headings to help readers navigate through the various impacts (eg: on employees, suppliers, projects, pensioners, etc). Paul W (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have done an initial restructuring of the article. Paul W (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is vs was shrubbery[edit]

So we're sticking with "is" in the present tense for a company that no longer has any active operations, is no longer legally registered as existing with Companies House, whose directors have been discharged, and which is internationally famous for having fallen directly into liquidation without passing Go and collecting €200 some 4 months ago... because, semantically, there are still liabilities to be dealt with?

Hot news: British Coal and British Rail still have outstanding works and liabilities. They've both been gone for over 20 years. Should they be in the present tense because all the loose ends have not been tied up?

Why, when Wikipedia editors decide on a policy, do we never, ever, for one moment, think about what makes sense to our readers? Instead we look for frankly insane minor reasons to stick to a policy we don't have in order to stay on the right side of what our manual of style hints at but doesn't actually say... because process is all and damn the foolish readers who are looking for clarity. Grrrr. ◦ Trey Maturin 22:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liquidation structure[edit]

There is a lot of overlap in the sub sections Employees, Clients and projects, and Joint venture partners. For example, joint ventures or projects which are taken on (or not) by other firms necessarily has an impact on employees - therefore I'm not sure how useful it is having these sections separate. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This material needs to be broken up into manageable chunks and, in my opinion, the current drafting does a pretty good job of that. Dormskirk (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carillion was a complex business undertaking a mixture of projects and delivering a variety of services under a range of different procurement/funding regimes, either singly or in combination with JV partners. In breaking it down to around half a dozen stakeholders, I was trying to identify the impacts on the main groupings, and help readers identify the principal impacts. As Jonpatterns says, there will be some overlap (eg: mentions of Kier in transferred employees and in JV partners), but might alternative approaches - for example, breaking down the impacts by project/service type or form of contract - just make it more complex and less readable? Paul W (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NEDonBoard[edit]

I have, for a second time, deleted an addition saying "NEDonBoard called for tougher requirements on non-executive directors and board members following the collapse of Carillion". I deleted it previously as I did not consider a news release from NEDonBoard as a reliable source. This was reverted by an IP editor who asserted the organisation was somehow reliable as it was an 'approved professional organisation' but this does not address that a news release is not usually regarded as reliable or independent of its subject. I have therefore taken this to Talk.

WP:Notability asserts coverage should be "Independent of the subject" and "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." The information about NEDonBoard is also from a self-published source, NEDonBoard itself. WP:Verify also lists self-published sources as sources that are usually not reliable, and in a footnote specifically mentions news releases as unreliable.

The revert of the previous edit was undertaken by an IP user at 82.227.179.52 (contributions)- seemingly used only to add NEDonBoard mentions to Wikipedia pages, and so may be in contravention of WP:COI. Paul W (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the mention of NEDonBoard should be removed. Dormskirk (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the NEDonBoard sentence was re-inserted by DoctorInfo2000, I have again reverted the addition, and left a message on that User's page. Getting close to edit-warring.... Paul W (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted the removal for the following reasons: 1. Discussion on revert/addition and are not relevant to the core of the discussion. 2. The main point to look discuss to remove is: "deleted an addition saying "NEDonBoard called for tougher requirements on non-executive directors and board members following the collapse of Carillion". I deleted it previously as I did not consider a news release from NEDonBoard as a reliable source.". The question: is NEDonBoard a reliable source. I consider it relevant for two reasons: a. NEDonBoard is the professional body for non-executive directors and Board members. The list of professional body can be found [1] Gov.uk is a reliable source. b. I found this other reference with link to FRC mentionned in the article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/government-gender-diversity-workplace-lloyds-bank-chairman-win-bischoff-nedonboard-marginalised-a8072211.html c. The board are at the center of the collapse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorInfo2000 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DoctorInfo2000 - you are confusing two separate issues: the reputation of the organisation (NEDonBoard), and the reliability of the citation (a news release). However reputable the organisation, Wikipedia guidelines say news releases issued by/about the organisation are not reliable. Paul W (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Paul W - I agree with you. I change the source in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you for highlihgting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorInfo2000 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/professional-bodies-approved-for-tax-relief-list-3/approved-professional-organisations-and-learned-societies

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest shortening intro?[edit]

The introduction seems quite long, and repeats substantial detail from the body of the article. As my proposed shortening https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carillion&oldid=1010003352 was reverted, perhaps someone else would like to have a go at cleaning it up? Servalo (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of the article so inevitably there will be some repetition. Your edit removed a few details e.g. the proposed FRC reforms to the treatment of directors' bonuses paid in shares. On reflection, I do not have strong views on this and, as you say, it may help for someone else to have a look. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo what Dormskirk says about the purpose of the lead (WP:Lead): As one of the major contributors to this article, I think the current lead "gives the basics ... and cultivates interest in reading on" in the maximum four paragraphs, though I accept the use of brackets makes some sentences long and convoluted. The topic and initial history give context, then―perhaps inevitably given the scale/impact of the Carillion liquidation―the article (and therefore its lead) ends up detailing its considerable repercussions (some still ongoing, of course). Maybe a Peer Review might help? Paul W (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting[edit]

The article word-count is now just over 10,000 words, the point at which guidelines (see Wikipedia:Article size) suggest splitting sections into separate articles. Given that there are ongoing hearings and enquiries into events leading up to Carillion's liquidation, it is likely the main article could grow further, so I am beginning to think about how we might split the article (see Wikipedia:Splitting). Do we, for instance:

  • split out an entire subarticle focused on the liquidation and its (ongoing) aftermath? Broadly, this would leave the History section, followed by a summary of the liquidation, etc, followed by sections on operations and major projects?
  • create a subarticle on the 'impacts' (comprising the two longest subsections of the Liquidation section)?
  • create two subarticles on the 'direct impacts' and 'political impacts' (the two longest subsections of the Liquidation section)?

Interested to hear other editors' thoughts, and whether this should be listed in Wikipedia:Proposed article splits for comment (I don't think it would be a controversial split, but there could be other views.) Paul W (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2022[edit]

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Garnarblarnar (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carillion → Carillion plc – I believe that we need to further disambiguate this article title from carillon. The word "carillon" is pronounced kə-RIL-yən in British English, which happens to be the same pronunciation of the company's name. It's likely that British English speakers are often writing "carillion" when searching for the musical instrument. In my personal experience, people struggle with spelling the name of the musical instrument, even on Wikipedia, hence the many redirects for misspellings. When searching on the default Wikipedia skin, typing "Carillion" into the search bar shows both "Carillon" and "Carillion", with no context on the difference. Renaming this to "Carillion plc" will make it much more evident. Thrakkx (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article was entitled "Carillion" throughout the life of the company and it should stay where it is per WP:COMMONNAME. There is no risk of it being confused with the musical instrument which is differently spelt. And there are a huge number of incoming links that would have to be changed. In my opinion, this is another case of WP:AINT. Dormskirk (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the existing hatnotes are sufficient. 162 etc. (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dormskirk sums it up neatly. Leave as is. Paul W (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite what the OED might say (and note that pronunciation is only one of the nine possible British English pronunciations given by the OED!), I don't know anyone who would pronounce the instrument as kə-RIL-yən, as that's not how it's spelt. But even if we did, there is still no need to move this article as the instrument is never spelt this way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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:Carillion&oldid=1211785898"