Talk:Brown Lenox & Co Ltd

Picture

If anyone can find an image of Samuel Brown or Samuel Lenox it would be a great help to the article. I have a feeling the only photos will be locked away in books however, if there even are any pictures.Crumblewolf{talk) 14.02 22 July 2012

Name

According to most reliable sources this article ought to be moved to Brown, Lenox & Co. Ltd.. Pterre (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If people want to move it I agree. The only reason I named it without the comma was that most local people refer to it as Brown Lenox, more as a singular name than two, and that on the Pontypridd factory sign, before it was demolished, it did not have a comma [1]. I suspect the company got rid of the comma in the name at some point. I feel that if its moved this page then re-directs people to the new one or if it's kept, Brown, Lenox & Co Ltd is created and re-directed here. Crumblewolf (talk) 00.03 22 July 2012

Probably Brown Lenox would be sufficient as a name for the article. According to Wikipedia's naming conventions for companies, legal status suffixes (such as & Co. Ltd.) aren't normally included in the article title. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I created the Brown Lenox page, a few days ago, and made it so it re-directs to this one. Thinking that may have been an easier solution to people who were just searching Brown Lenox. But the only reason I called it Brown Lenox & Co Ltd was due to the sources I read calling it that. I was initially just going to call it Brown Lenox, so, if people wish to change it to just Brown Lenox, I would agree. Crumblewolf (talk) 14.40 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The point was the comma rather than necessarily the Co Ltd. As you will have noticed, it was already refered to in the List of locations in the Port of London with the comma. Pterre (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm well for the moment I would say keep it as it is. I should be loaning a book from a friend about Brown Lenox soon and I will see if it uses the comma in the name . Crumblewolf (talk)

Ok I've looked as a few books about local history and they all refer to it Brown Lenox and not Brown, Lenox. Therefore I think it should not be changed for now. However none of the books called it Brown Lenox % Co Ltd either so I think if the name were to be changed it should be changed to just Brown Lenox Crumblewolf (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

See this. Note that while the web page calls it 'Brown Lenox' the advert (which one might think would know what it was talking about) clearly shows it as 'Brown, Lenox'. Pterre (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It says Brown, Lenox & Co. Ltd., which is the legal form of its name, isn't it? It is a list, hence the comma. Sionk (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I refer m'learned friend to Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. Pterre (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Either way, if the name os the article is a list, it should have a comma (Brown, Lenox & Co) or if it is just the two names (Brown Lenox), it is not a list therefore no need for a comma. Sionk (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK after doing more research it should be Brown, Lenox & Co Ltd the factory sign that I showed an image of was taken after the factory was bought by another company and was the brown Lenox factory rather than the brown lenox company. If, however, as Sionk pointed out if there is no need for the & Co Ltd on Wikipedia maybe it would be more beneficial to move the article to the page Brown Lenox and then get rid of the comma and & Co Ltd? Crumblewolf (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Titanic anchor chain

I have failed to find any evidence for the unsourced claim that Brown Lenox made the anchor chain for Titanic. Several sources say this was made by Hingley's Anchor Works in the Black Country: National Geographic Channel Encyclopaedia Titanica Black Country Bugle. If no evidence is found for Brown Lenox then we should delete this section. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)