Possible sale

Reuters put out a story yesterday saying a sale was likely to be announced "this week". Going to track that and keep the article up to date. Wonder what the new name will be? Logical would be "Electro-Motive Corporation" again, but with the current corporate fad for stupid meaningless names, who knows? —Morven 23:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

So will this article be renamed to Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. as per this announcement from 4 April 2005?

"Greenbriar Equity Group LLC, Berkshire Partners LLC and certain related parties today announced the completion of the acquisition of Electro-Motive Division from General Motors. The company, which will be named Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. (EMD), is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of freight and passenger diesel-electric locomotives."

"The transaction covers substantially all of the Electro-Motive businesses, including North American and international locomotives; power, marine and industrial products; the spare parts and parts rebuild business; and all of Electro-Motive’s locomotive maintenance contracts worldwide. Both the LaGrange, Illinois and London, Ontario manufacturing facilities are included in the agreement."[1]Plasma east 02:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that Wikipedia articles have to be primarily named with the company's most recent name, when it is still not commonly used. Wikipedia naming policy would have to agree. —Morven 18:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

When the first two words of the article ("General Motors") are blatantly wrong, something should be done to correct this. And the REDIRECT from the old name can catch and handle all the people who aren't up-to-date.

Atlant 11:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technically, the article is not wrong. This article is about General Motors Electro-Motive Division (GM-EMD), its history and locomotive production, and not (yet) about Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc. The connection between the two corporate entities is made, now it's time to wait to see what the new EMD does. To be fully accurate, we should probably replace "is" with "was" in the lead sentence since GM-EMD is no longer, but I'm not so certain that a page move is needed at this point. I'm more in favor of keeping this article where it is to concentrate on GM-EMD's history. As the new EMD makes its own history, we can evaluate whether or not we need to create a new page for the newly spun-off company. Also, if we add a large amount of information on Electro-Motive Corporation or Winton Engine Company (GM-EMD's predecessors), we can determine if those need to be split off into their own articles too. slambo 12:54, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sold!

Somebody is going to have a LOT of Wikilinks to edit, 'cause this article really should be renamed to Electro-Motive Diesel, Inc.. See...

Atlant 16:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GMD vs. EMD

A good start - there are some important parts of the corporate history which are missing:

• EMD was based in Lagrange and created new-builds through until Lagrange operations were downgraded in the early 1990s (after NAFTA).

• GMD (General Motors Diesel) was a Canadian subsidiary created to avoid excessive Canadian duties on import locos. GMD's London, Ont. plant was newer than Lagrange, and coupled with a co-located GM Defence operation (now General Dynamics Land Systems), it offered cheaper production of locomotives. After the Canada-U.S free trade agreement, and later NAFTA, GM decided to consolidate at London.

• It may make sense to have a separate corporate entry for EMD, another for GMD, and keep this one for GM-EMD (a more recent name, IIRC).

Plasma east 03:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that we need a breakout yet. But it's also worth mentioning that that loss of production capacity cost EMD quite a few orders. La Grange still produces engines and systems, it just doesn't assemble locomotives anymore. —Morven 07:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The nav box template...

It just occurred to me that the existing Template:EMD diesels should probably be renamed to something like and the existing template name should be used for the "new" EMD's products. We could keep adding new models to the existing template, but this seems a natural place to split off as new models are developed. The only real drawback that I see is that we'd have to go back and update the existing EMD locomotive articles to point to the new template name, but as that's a finite set of articles, it wouldn't be as big of a job. Thoughts? slambo 14:12, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Um, why?

The split hasn't actually happened yet anyway (it's agreed, but not implemented) and the new company's range is tiny (SD70M-2, SD70ACe, GP20D). And all of these were developed under GM ownership anyway.

I can't see any reason to split at all. —Morven 16:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)