Talk:United House Developments

Split into two companies

Assuming that the deal just announced will go through, I propose that this article should be split into two pages about the separate companies. However, that can probably wait until 2015, by which time there should be more press articles about the two new businesses. – Fayenatic London 08:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that a stub has been created at United Living Group. This still seems too early to me. I propose to move it into user space for now as a subpage of the sole author, and leave a redirect at that name in the main space to this article. User:United Man of Kent, you may not follow what I'm talking about, so may I just do it with no objection from you, so that you can see what I mean? You can of course comment afterwards. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Another editor tagged it for speedy deletion, so I moved it to User:United Man of Kent/sandbox. – Fayenatic London 06:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to check all the relevant company web sites (United House Ltd, United House Developments and Bullock Construction), as changes are being made that do not reflect what is actually happening in real life. United House that currently exists on Wikipedia makes reference to both the contracting arm and developments. This is wrong. The United House (Ltd) website make no reference to being a private developer, but does make clear that it is contractor and now part of United Living Group. United House Developments' website makes no reference to being a contractor. Bullock Group's website makes it clear that it is now part of United Living Group. This has already happened, the contract has been signed, you should not wait until 2015 to update this information.

United House Developments needs its own page (I would suggest that it takes on the "old" United House page) and United Living Group needs its own page. United House Ltd is just a trading name of an organisation that no longer exists in practical terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by United Man of Kent (talk • contribs) 07:03, 18 September 2014‎

It is better to wait for coverage in independent sources. Press coverage still makes the changes sound future rather than past, e.g. "the deal which is in its final stages".Inside Housing The original CN citation says of the companies forming United Living, "Both will continue to trade under current arrangements until full integration is completed in April 2015". – Fayenatic London 12:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't really have it both ways. If an article can't be changed because the company's "official website" hasn't yet been updated (Fayenatic change at 19:53 on 16 September 2014) then it should be changed when the "official website" is updated. Using CN or IH as an authority is ridiculous, they are not investigative journalists, they simply print the press releases that have been issued to them by the companies. Your quote regarding "current arrangements" misses the point that they have merged and are simply using their old brands as trading names. I can understand that you're protective of a page you created, however if the content is incorrect and you've been told the content is incorrect, you are acting inappropriately by not allowing it to be updated. It could be months before you get sufficient "independent sources" to allow this page to be updated. I assume this will mean contacting Companies House, because trade journals are certainly not independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by United Man of Kent (talk • contribs) 21:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point about reliance on primary sources (company websites), but I don't fully accept your allegation about trade press; sure, they are not Channel 4 Dispatches, but IH does also carry adverse publicity. It still seems too early to me to create two articles that are substantially different, as the history would be largely the same. Moreover, the detailed parts of the history are about maintenance, refurbishment and construction.

What would we do with the awards, split them? Most seem to be for construction rather than development.

Likewise, the notable projects are construction rather than development, e.g. pages about Clapham One say it was built by United for the developer Cathedral. Even if it was the UH Developments company that was involved, I don't know whether there would be any sources stating that. Paynes and Borthwick is development, but note that I could not find a good independent citation for that one.

The above tends towards keeping the existing article for United Living, and starting a new page for UH Developments. However, there are only a few lines that could be written about it to set it apart from the UL article. How about starting with a new section on Developments within this page, to be split later when it grows to a decent size supported by external citations? – Fayenatic London 08:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The United House article is now completely out of date. United House Developments is a separate and independent company from United House Limited. UHL is now part of United Living Group. You may want to consider reworking this page to be UHD's entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.101.164.130 (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 146.101.164.130 (talk · contribs) Thanks for your help. Please help by providing independent citations for UHL, e.g. press coverage. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

History

The article says Harp Heating rebranded as United House after Adams joined in 1982; this date was put in by SC1967 (talk · contribs) [1]. However, the 2008 Telegraph citation [2] says he joined in 1981, and UHD's History page [3] says the rebranding was in 1980. I propose to revert to 1981, following the principle of WP:V. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)