Talk:Taylor Woodrow Construction

Taylor Woodrow

This article acknowledges the work of previous editors who created content for the Taylor Woodrow article; this article focuses on civil engineering and other construction, rather than housebuilding, and will be expanded to cover activities since 2008 (when TWC was acquired by Vinci SA. Paul W (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Ltw2021 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ltw2021: I have closed this request because I am unsure of what you want to add to the article. If you want to make a new request, please follow the instructions at Template:Request edit/Instructions. If you have any questions, please post at the help desk. Thanks and happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, one of the edits I would like to make is the name of the company. Taylor Woodrow does not have construction in the name. There is another page with the same name (Taylor Woodrow) but that page does not contain any of the correct information about the company. This page is a bit more accurate (Taylor Woodrow Construction) but a lot of the information is quite outdated for example the Chairman, Logo etc. I am quite new to the editing side of things so I was wondering if you could help me update this page. Ltw2021 (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I have checked the file at Companies House and this company does indeed have "Construction" in its name. See Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited Annual Report for the Year ended 31 December 2019. As regards the article on the company Taylor Woodrow which existed between 1921 and 2007, if you believe any of the information for that period is inaccurate, then please set out those inaccuracies on the talk page for that article. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

On companies house it is showing two names. Taylor Woodrow Construction and Taylor Woodrow Civil Engineering Ltd. Please check the company website linked in the Wikipedia page. It will show that all branding does not contain construction in the name which is causing confusion to users of Wikipedia. The Taylor Woodrow page (alone) is completely separate. Ltw2021 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to clarify, that it is registered with Companies House under Taylor Woodrow Construction but all other material such as branding, logos etc does not use this in its name. Does this mean that the Wikipedia page must call it by the registered name? In the industry, they are simply known as Taylor Woodrow so just trying to see if we can continue like this or it must be as registered. Ltw2021 (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

On wikipedia we do not necessarily follow branding: we have guidelines on article names (see Wikipedia:Article titles). It seems to me that this article should either be named "Taylor Woodrow Construction" (its legal name) or something similar to disambiguate from the historical company. At one point the material on Taylor Woodrow Construction formed part of the historical Taylor Woodrow article but, after debate, a consensus emerged to create a separate article on the construction business. Dormskirk (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that excluding 'construction' "is causing confusion to users of Wikipedia" as Ltw2021 asserts. The Taylor Woodrow article has, at the top, a clear link to the Vinci subsidiary. Distinction between the two articles might also be underlined by adding a section about TWC's partial Norwest Holst origins. Paul W (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added a brief section about the Norwest Holst/Vinci history, hoping to clarify that today's TWC is a civil engineering division with strong heritage from two previous groups. Paul W (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the new section about the history of TW. Is it at all possible to change the Taylor Woodrow article to something with parentheses to clarify and leave this one as Taylor Woodrow. As the "construction" is not really commonly used in the industry as you will see on a range of articles written about us. An example is: https: //www.constructionenquirer.com/2020/08/11/taylor-woodrow-lands-100m-power-plant-deal/ Ltw2021 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

As already indicated above, I would not support a change in the name of this article from Taylor Woodrow Construction which is the legal name. And there is no precedent for putting the title of the Taylor Woodrow article into parentheses. The most realistic alternative option is to merge the Taylor Woodrow Construction article back into the Taylor Woodrow article and there was previously a consensus to break it out. Dormskirk (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dormskirk here. Taylor Woodrow was, for over 80 years, a substantial business strongly associated with housebuilding and other general construction works in addition to civil engineering. TWC by contrast is barely 10 years old and is a relatively small subdivision of Vinci (as an alternative it could conceivably be merged with the main Vinci article; part of its operations derived from Norwest Holst). I think the current articles give appropriate weight to the main TW business's long heritage, while also - as I previously said - avoiding "confusion" with the redirecting headnote to the TWC article. Just because industry media and construction folk might abbreviate the name to "Taylor Woodrow" is not sufficient reason to swap the two around, IMHO. Paul W (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The separate articles are definitely correct and should remain separate as this one (TWC) is slightly more up to date. I checked the Wikipedia Article titles page and it states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)"

I am just trying to understand it a bit more so please feel free to correct me, inform me and teach me where possible. Ltw2021 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment that the Taylor Woodrow article is not up to date and your comment that the TWC article should appear under the name that is most commonly used suggests that the Taylor Woodrow article should be brought up to date by merging the TWC material back in there. As previously explained there was previously a consensus to break that material out. Also the discussion above suggests that that position has not changed. Dormskirk (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. We'll leave it as it is then. Ltw2021 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting that. Wikipedians try to present a faithful account reflecting the whole history of a subject - in this case, around 100 years. Taylor Woodrow was clearly an eminent housebuilder for many decades, but after various corporate changes, the name fell into disuse between 2008 and 2011 (before being resurrected to brand a small division of Vinci engaged in a separate field - civil engineering). This was why there was consensus to start a separate article about the new business. Also, the Wikipedia guidance cited, in my view, does not mean we should prefer the name most commonly used recently; we should reflect the name most commonly used by reliable sources over the history of the subject (and so avoid Recentism). Paul W (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to mention that the company was started in 1921. As shown in the following source: https: //www.constructionnews.co.uk/archive/end-of-an-era-for-taylor-woodrow-23-01-2009/

Done. Paul W (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The company was then founded in 1937 where is was specialising in civil construction work. The reason for updating the above is that Taylor Woodrow are celebrating 100 Years this year. Ltw2021 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another update please could you add Julian Gatward in the Key People section. He is the Managing Director of Taylor Woodrow which can be seen from the citation in source 2. Thank you for help so far. Ltw2021 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Done.Paul W (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Woodrow Construction recent projects

Hi there, is it possible for an update to be made to this page with mentions of more recent major projects. The projects listed on the page are quite outdated with one of the projects being completed in 2006. If you have a look at the Taylor Woodrow website or some news articles you will find projects that have been completed in more recent years. We would like to bring the article as up to date as possible. If you would like to see history then this can be seen in the Our Heritage section and the 100 Years section. Ltw2021 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi - This would require independent sources. The website cannot be used as a source. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have moved a para (with references) concerning more recent projects from the earlier section to a new section about TWC today. Can you suggest reliable sources covering TWC work on projects which are notable (ie, usually covered elsewhere in Wikipedia)? Paul W (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

A good test of notability is that you would expect the projects to already have articles of their own. Dormskirk (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm declining this as not specific enough. Please feel free to open a new request that details

• Which changes you would like to be made (providing proposed text)
• Why you would like those changes to be made (if not immediately clear)
• Sources that back up your proposed changes.

Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 21:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, would articles written by external news outlets count as a reliable source? The problem we are having with the Wikipedia articles is that they mention Vinci rather than the subsidiaries who also worked on the project? Ltw2021 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Industry publications (eg: Building, New Civil Engineer, etc), broadsheet newspapers and professional journals are all reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more background). Paul W (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you. I will compile a list of notable projects with a link to reliable sources and we can go from there. Ltw2021 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, apologies it's taken me so long to compile the list but here is a list of projects with links to Industry Publications. I've included a couple of links for each project so you can go through them and select the best one:

Norwich Crown Point Depot https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/40-million-norwich-crown-point-upgrade-under-way

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/about-us/news-desk/news-articles/norwich-rail-depot-redevelopment-continues-new-bogie-drop

Tottenham Court Station https://sasint.co.uk/projects/tottenham-court-road-london/

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/tottenham-court-road-station-london/

https://www.crossrail.co.uk/the-build/crossrail-the-build-main-construction

Victoria Station https://www.lba.london/projects/london-underground-victoria-station/

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/buildings/project-reports/london-victoria-upgrade-puts-bam-and-taylor-woodrow-to-the-test-20-03-2013/

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/the-gallery-victoria-station-ticket-hall-opens-17-01-2017/

Kings Cross Station Redevelopment https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/archive/taylor-woodrow-looks-to-hs2-after-kings-cross-success-22-03-2012/

http://www.merrellpublishers.com/9781858945873

https://www.building.co.uk/focus/kings-cross-stations-500m-redevelopment-king-of-kings/5019041.article

https://www.ceequal.com/case-studies/kings-cross-redevelopment-programme-package-4/

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/kings-cross-station-western-concourse-contract-announcement

HS2 Old Oak Common https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/old-oak-common/

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/balfour-beatty-jv-signs-hs2-1bn-old-oak-common-contract-17-09-2019/

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/hs2-contractors-to-start-work-on-old-oak-commons-record-breaking-station-box-17-05-2021/

White Hart Lane Station https://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/tfl-appoints-taylor-woodrow-to-redevelop-white-hart-lane-station/

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/july/transformation-of-white-hart-lane-station-moves-a-step-closer

Whitechapel Station https://balfourbeattyvinci.co.uk/bbmv-successfully-hands-over-crossrails-whitechapel-temporary-station/

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2021/08/24/bbmv-hands-over-latest-completed-crossrail-station/

Allerton Waste Recovery Park https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/allerton-waste-plant-stays-on-track

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/01/08/1675795/0/en/VINCI-starts-construction-of-an-energy-from-waste-unit-in-Yorkshire-United-Kingdom.html

EcoPark South https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2021/01/26/taylor-woodrow-starts-on-100m-recycling-centre/

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2020/08/11/taylor-woodrow-lands-100m-power-plant-deal/

https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civils/vinci-lands-100m-deal-on-north-london-efw-scheme-11-08-2020/

Isle of Grain https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/contractors/vinci/vinci-to-build-176m-natural-gas-tank-01-02-2021/

https://www.lngindustry.com/liquid-natural-gas/29012021/vinci-awarded-lng-tank-construction-contract-by-national-grid/

Dr Days to Filton Abbey Wood Capacity Improvement https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/buildings/contracts/taylor-woodrow-wins-33m-bristol-rail-upgrade-31-10-2014/

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2014/10/31/vinci-wins-33m-filton-four-tracks-project/

M20 Junc 10A http://www.infrastructure-intelligence.com/article/dec-2016/vinci-and-jacobs-scoop-m20-junction-10a-contract

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2016/12/16/vinci-bags-39m-new-m20-junction-near-ashford/

Ltw2021 (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I have added quite a few of these. I did not include the last three (Isle of Grain, Dr Days Improvement and M20 Junction 10A) as they do not seem to have been notable enough to have justified wikipedia articles in their own right. Dormskirk (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk. Can I suggest these are moved to their own section under 'Taylor Woodrow Construction today', rather than being included alongside projects of the original Taylor Woodrow. As has previously been discussed, these are two historically distinct entities. Paul W (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paul - Good point and now done. Dormskirk (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Perfect thank you both Paul and Dormskirk Ltw2021 (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Concrete

Hi Paul and Dormskirk I wondered if there is any way we can mention this as one of our notable achievements. Taylor Woodrow led the first use of Exegy® ultra-low carbon concrete in the UK. Here are a few links you could use as references: https://www.geplus.co.uk/news/ultra-low-carbon-concrete-poured-at-london-sustainable-waste-hub-17-01-2022/ https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2022/01/11/vinci-completes-first-pour-of-its-ultra-low-carbon-concrete/ https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/first-uk-pour-of-new-ultra-low-carbon-concrete-follows-proof-of-concept-on-grand-paris-express-13-01-2022/ https://constructionglobal.com/built-environment/ecocem-and-taylor-woodrow-pour-first-exegy-low-carbon-cement

Ltw2021 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe add a short sentence and citation to the mention of Edmonton EcoPark in the project listing, I think. Paul W (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added it as a note so that it does not look too promotional. Dormskirk (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you that sounds good to me. Ltw2021 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Google knowledge panel

Hi, I wondered if you'd be able to help with a query of mine. We have a Google Knowledge Panel which cites the old Taylor Woodrow Wikipedia page. As we have established that information is extremely outdated and is not relevant to the Taylor Woodrow that we are today. We would like for this (Taylor Woodrow Construction) page to be linked to our Knowledge Panel to avoid confusion on the information and the correct Wikipedia page to find our information. I've submitted requests to google numerous times and they are continuously rejecting this change. Would anyone know how this change can be made? Is this something that can be changed from Wikipedia directly or does it have to be through Google. Ltw2021 (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ltw2021. As far as I know, this is not something that can be fixed from Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:You can't fix Google through Wikipedia). Google does offer some help to authorised representatives of entities with GKPs (see this page, for example). Paul W (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)