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 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a vintage Western Radio Flyer kids ride on pedal tractor with spark plug wires not paying it on actual wires and great shape when was it made how much is it worth Vanessamorris927 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (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)