Talk:Radio Flyer

(company)

Is that necessary? Doesn't the company have precedence over a film that takes its title from the company? Just some thoughts.

- moogle 06:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I find the disambiguation page to be unnecessary. Radio Flyer should link directly to the article on the company, with a disambiguation link to the movie at the top of the company page. --Aaron Walden File:Tsalagisigline.gif 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move JPG-GR (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, I think that this article should be moved to Radio Flyer:

1. The company has been around 75 years longer than the movie.
2. The company is by far more well-known than the movie
3. There is already a disambiguation link at the top of this article pointing people to the page on the film

Oldiesmann (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose. I'm not convinced that there is a primary usage. So since the current setup does not break anything, leaving it along is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Just because you make a movie about something doesn't give you the right to the name. It would be like changing the name of Niagara Falls to Niagara Falls (falls) just because someone made a movie about the falls. 199.125.109.78 (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This article existed before the movie. Therefore when the movie article was split off a disambiguation page was not needed, only an "otheruse" template at the top of the page. According to Radio Flyer (film) the movie only made $4.6m so was not particularly significant. I would say that a still-going company is the primary usage ahead of a fifteen year old box office failure (even one with big stars in it). Zuiver jo (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the Radio Flyer red wagon is by far the most likely usage, so neither the company nor the film is primary. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

#18 production

I just removed the following sentence from the article:

While there have been dozens of different versions over the years, the "#18 Classic Red Wagon" with which the company is forever associated has been in continuous production for more than 70 years.

A sourced sentence along these lines would be good, but the company did not make wagons 1942–1945, so the present form is wrong as well as being uncited. FiveColourMap (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturing locale

As a new editor just pointed out, the toys are now (some/all?) manufactured in China. There were a few news articles at the time discussing Radio Flyer as a great American company betraying its founding principles / forced to offshore by burdensome regulation / whatever. We should have a paragraph on that, probably under #History. Anyone else should feel free to write it, as I am unlikely to find the time in the near term. FiveColourMap (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)