Talk:MG Motor/Archives/2015

Content excised from MG Cars page
The following content was excised this date from the MG Cars page, which is specifically about the defunct automaker, not the SAIC iteration presently in operation. Valid items may be integrated into this page as appropriate:


 * From article intro:
 * In 2007 production of the MG TF roadster and MG 7 large sports saloon (derived from the previous Rover 75/MG ZT model) started in China. Assembly of MG TFs for the European market, from Chinese built complete knock down (CKD) kits, was started by NAC MG UK at Longbridge in August 2008.


 * From History heading:
 * Its new Chinese owners, stated that the brand would stand for something new in China, as MG general manager Zhang Xin said: "We want Chinese consumers to know this brand as 'Modern Gentleman'. To see that this brand represents grace and style." In Europe it still stands for "Morris Garages".


 * The name "Morris Garages" is also being used in Peru and the United Arab Emerates. Elsewhere it is simply the logo.


 * Nanjing restarted production of the MG TF and ZT ranges in early 2007. The TF and the ZT (renamed the MG 7) are assembled in Pukou, Jiangsu Province in China. The MG 3, a rebadged Rover Streetwise, also entered production at Pukou.


 * On 11 July 2006 Nanjing announced the development of a TF sports coupé. A new plant was to be built in Ardmore, Oklahoma to build the car, accounting for roughly 60% of TF output worldwide. A new development centre would also be opened in the United States, located at the University of Oklahoma. According to Nanjing, MGs were to go on sale in the United States in the early summer of 2008. However, in an interview in August, 2008, NAC MG UK's Sales and Marketing Director, Gary Hagen stated that the Oklahoma deal had fallen through. He also said that there would be no immediate return to the US market as they would first be concentrating on the UK and Ireland followed by the rest of Europe.


 * In 2007, NAC entered talks about a merger with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation, supported by the Chinese government. The takeover was completed on 26 December 2007. SAIC manufactures the Roewe 750, which, like the MG 7, is derived from the Rover 75/MG ZT.


 * The MG range was relaunched in the United Kingdom during 2008, with an updated limited edition of the TF built at Longbridge by NAC MG UK, called the TF LE500. Production of the TF at Longbridge was suspended again in October 2009 and officially ended in March 2011.


 * In November 2008, the MG brand returned to the Americas, when the SAIC Roewe 550 and Roewe 750 were rebadged as the MG 550 and MG 750 respectively by the Chilean importer, SKBergé.


 * In January 2009, NAC MG UK was renamed MG Motor UK Limited.


 * The MG 6 hatchback variant of the Roewe 550 was announced in April 2009.

It is expected that this model will be assembled both in China, starting in 2010, and at Longbridge, in 2011.


 * From Models heading:
 * In 2007, after the acquisition by Nanjing Automobile Group, the Rover 75/MG ZT was relaunched in China as the MG 7 and the Rover Streetwise as the MG 3SW. A new model, the MG 6, based in the Roewe 550, is scheduled for sale in China at the end of 2010, and in the United Kingdom and Europe in 2011.


 * From Motorsport heading:
 * In 2007, a surprise announcement was made that a Super 2000 (S2000) rally car has been prepared in conjunction with rally experts MSD, who used to manage the Hyundai works World Rally team. This is the first sporting step the reformed company has made. Testing has been carried out on the MG ZR based car & it is expected to enter competition in 2008.


 * From List of models heading:
 * 2007– MG 3
 * 2009– MG 6
 * 2007–    MG 7

The hatnote at the MG Cars page - - makes clear that article is about the defunct company, not the current subsidiary of SAIC, hence relocation of the above content here for integration at the MG Motor UK webpage.Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * These moves only make sense if the MG Cars article becomes only about the company which became defunct in 1952, and a separate MG marque article is created. There is no logic or justification in removing detail about current products bearing the MG marque but retaining information about products produced from 1952 to 2005 which bore the MG marque but were produced by a variety of other companies, such as the MG Maestro and MG ZT. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It is proposed that MG Cars be merged into MG Motor. It is believed that the content in the MG Cars article can easily be explained in the context of MG Motor, and the MG Motor article is of a reasonable size that the merging of MG Cars will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. I'm setting this up on behalf of an OTRS correspondent (ticket 2014070110013623), who does not know the merge procedure - they said The two articles gives the impression that they are two separate companies, which is not actually true. I expect the correspondent to elaborate on their rationale here within the next 24 hours - please be patient, Thank You. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are several issues here, and they have not been fully resolved in previous debates. MG is a marque/brand, and has been owned by many different companies over the decades, and MG Motor is more about the company in its Chinese era rather than the marque. I'm not sure if the current split is right, but it is better than not having any split at all which would end up like the mess that is currently the Porsche article which is undergoing a similar debate, or even Mini to a certain extent.Warren (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I hear what you're saying Warren. I'm concerned that the initial search for MG returns MG Cars and that the first line of that article suggests that MG does not exist anymore. Maybe the MG Cars page should be 'The History of MG' and the main page about the company is 'MG Motor'? Al (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article currently named "MG Cars" is in fact about the marque and should be renamed "MG (marque)" or similar. There is a good case for still keeping the article "MG Motor" however which deals with a company which is independently notable. There are a couple of further layers of complexity to consider though. Not all of SAIC's MG activities - in fact the bulk of them - do not take place within the UK registered MG Motor but rather under a Chinese company. This is very clear from the accounts of MG Motor which do not show the turnover of a company producing tens of thousands of MG's per annum in China. MG assembly in China should not really be included in the MG Motor article, but should be somewhere. Secondly, the end date of MG Cars is not clear. The company merged into another which then underwent multiple changes of ownership and name. It is clear that by the time of Rover Group, MG branded cars were not being made by an MG Cars subsidiary but when the independent company fell away is no clear cut. 86.162.156.89 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I'm coming around to the idea of just one MG article as the parent companies can be dealt with by other existing articles such as SAIC (which would include MG Motors) and British Leyland etc. The way the MG Motor page is not very accurate on the international scene makes it even more confusing. I have requested that the current MG page moves to MG (disambiguation), as was the intent back in 2003 as it turns out! Warren (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. MG Cars is about the historic company named MG Car Company Limited, now long defunct, that created the MG marque. MG Motor is about a subsidiary of a Chinese company that acquired the rights to the MG marque from MG Rover. There is no continuity of history, design or engineering between the two. TwoWayStreet (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree with you TwoWayStreet, but the MG of Austin Rover and Rover Group days was much the same as now - a simple marque. What's the difference of BMW owning Rover Group using the MG badge, and SAIC owing MG Rover assets, and now called MG Motor? It's a long history of ownership, which has perhaps become more obvious since it became Chinese. To take your argument to the logical conclusion, perhaps MG Cars article should end in the 1950s? It's because of this muddle that I think one merged article could tell the story properly, and we have to admit the magic of the MG badge has been the result of clever marketing over the decades! Warren (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment:The article titled ‘MG Cars’ is about the historic company, but doesn’t represent the present MG brand. An article titled ‘MG’ should surely be about the marque which is very much alive. The continuity between the two is also very apparent – many of the same designers and engineers are still working at the same Longbridge site. It’s the same company, the same badge, the same name, just under different ownership. Car manufacturers change ownership all of the time and as a company, it cannot be seen that MG is ‘defunct’. The proposal is to have a page named ‘MG’ which is about the marque and explains the history of MG, but ultimately shows the brand is still in existence. If, subsequently, there is a separate page titled ‘The History of MG’ then that would be great. Al (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose such merger, per the arguments cited above by 86.162.156.89 and TwoWayStreet. If a merger is really necessary, it should be done the other way around: this article merged into MG Cars in order to keep that page history, and then the final article renamed to whatever title is deemed more appropriate. —capmo (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the merge, if it was to happen, should be the other way round: MG Motor into MG Cars. Warren (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article title should really be 'MG' and not 'MG Cars' so that people searching Wikipedia are aware that the brand is still alive. If merging into MG Cars, the article shouldn't really start with 'This article is about the defunct MG Car Company' Al (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldoturner (talk • contribs)


 * Comment: I feel that the pages should be merged, very simply it provides a single source of information on MG through its trials and tribulations over the decades, to have multiple entries results in a disjointed source of information. It will require a level of editing to ensure the context and content are current, i.e. the word 'defunct' is not relevant. AdrianVictoryDaly (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I Support the merge as the marque is primary, with the ownership of the marque being more part of the history of the marque. It does not make any sense to have to articles title MG cars and MG motors - this just creates confusion. If the owners are significant enough then they should have their own articles as is the case now. NealeFamily (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly a desire to tell the whole MG story, but no agreement on how to tell it. Do we leave it as the status quo or have another round of discussions?! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)