Talk:MG cars

Origin of the M.G. name
I see a new paragraph has appeared describing the origins of the M.G. name. The trouble is I can't understand it. It seems to say that the initials don't stand for Morris Garages but rather for the initials for Morris Garages which seems a very narrow distinction. One thing is certain, on all the early advertisements and letter headings it was never MG but always M.G..

Also, can anyone give a source to the story that Cecil Kimber said M.G. didn't stand for anything. Without a source this rather contentious statement should not be there. Malcolma 20:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The source is a Mr Jonathan Daniel a member of the RAC & contemporary of Cecil. Mr Daniel wrote a letter to the MG Enthusiast Magazine which was published in the October Issue of 1993. In that letter he is at pains to correct the misconception about the meaning of M.G. & the significance of the dots. I have reprinted the letter in its entirety here. Peter TD 5801

"Regarding the dots in M.G. as I started this particular ball rolling with my letter to Auto Classic magazine, my thoughts on this matter may be of interest as they involve a personal conversation with Mr. Kimber himself, some sixty years ago.

First let me dispel the ‘experts’ who doubt Mrs. Cook’s (Jean Kimber Cook, daughter of Cecil Kimber, founder of the M.G. Car Company) comments – she is absolutely correct in stating that ‘M.G. does not stand for Morris Garages.’ As regards the dots, however, they are there for a particular reason which I will come to later.

Despite what numerous books and commentators say, the truth of the matter is that Mr. Kimber, in pursuit of a name for his inspired cars, chose the M from Morris and the G from Garages as a tribute to his employer – Billy Morris, they were not abbreviations. Had anyone dated (sic) to suggest to him that they were shorthand initials for Morris Garages, he would have given them ‘flea in the ear’ pointing out there already was a Morris Garages – how could there be two?

At an R.A.C. awards dinner in the Thirties, Mr. Kimber, as our guest of hour (sic), made quite clear to all present that he wanted it known that M.G. stood just for itself – ‘The British Sports Car.’ I was there (and still have the signed menu card) and it came from the man himself! His daughter – Mrs. Cook – also related this fact in your April/May ’88 issue.

As to the famed dots, my friend M.E.L. Gosling – a motorcyclist, having been informed the M.&G. were not shortened, queried the use of the dots; Mr. Kimber told us it was simply a matter of design – more visually attractive, and no other reason. It was confusing then, as now, however, and no-one would dare to take on the master. We later studied the factory literature of the time, and agreed – he was right! ‘That which Mr. Kimber joined together, let no editor or tired typesetter put asunder.’ If it was good enough for the boss of M.G. it should be good enough for the rest of us.

You are not alone in your ignorance of these important points: witness the new signs outside the M.G. Car Club premises in Abingdon – no dots – someone has slipped up, and they really should know better. This is not the first time the club has abandoned its history – only since the arrival of previous magazine editors, was the exclamation mark following ‘Safety Fast!’ returned to its rightful place; again this is an important piece of M.G. history and is there for a reason.

The excellent centrespread in your September 1991 issue is how it should be done – or are these just dots in front of my ancient eyes? You can do it when you try! Today’s printing technology can easily be programmed to include the dots in M.G. and exclude them from MGB etc., it is simple, if you care enough.

May this octogenarian offer some advice to all the young bloods? Do not ignore your marque heritage, that is what made it great. If required, I will gladly dip into my pension to fund glucose tablets for your typesetter, and blobs of paint for the M.G. Car Club signs, along with a copy of "M.G. by McComb", wherein on each page, you will see how the letters should be presented when not in the octagon.

Congratulations to Mr. Barry Foster for his spirited response (Aug. ’91): was it really such a short letter – or had you cut it? Here’s hoping he can work the magic on Mr. Kimber’s own club.

Finally, on the subject of the dots: your own magazine, while not having the benefit of the octagon on the front cover, would, as Mr. Kimber intimated, impart more visual impact with bold stops in place – after all, what is an Enthusiast?

Before I go chasing the other Brooklands lads, upstairs – where engines do not break, and fuel is free – do me and Mr. Kimber’s memory a favour: remember that the mists of time have a habit of obscuring the facts, so shun the self-proclaimed experts, become a purist and stand out from the crowd and proudly state – ‘M.G. stands for itself – not Morris Garages, and the dots are there as a matter of design only.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter TD 5801 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

University of Oklahoma?
There has been some news in Oklahoma of MG opening a plant in Ardmore, but the University of Oklahoma certainly would not keep quiet about their involvement if it were already made public by MG.

Record breaking and racing
I think we need to say something more about MG's successes in these in the 1930s - in racing and trialling, it was not just the works team - the three musketeers, cream crackers etc. -- Beardo 13:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I fear pointing out how the MG racing cars of the 30's dominated the World might cast aspersions that the typical Nazi Germany fans here running Wiki day to day op's might find distracting from their global propaganda campaign. You know the typical nonsense about how the Nazi's were right, and the world would be such a grand place if Winston Churchill and the Americans had joined in behind the Nazi cause.Bugatti35racer (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Renaming to MG Motor
It appears this article has been renamed without any discussion. Apart from the fact that the current UK company name, as of January 2009 is not "MG Motor Limited", but MG Motor UK Limited, per WP:UCN, we should use follow the most common usage when naming articles. Since the "MG Motor UK" name has been in use for only a few months (and the MG brand has been around since 1924), I would suggest this isn't the most common usage. Letdorf (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC).

I also am concerned at the renaming. The company has had many names over the years and is arguably more famous for its past than its present. MG Cars, the old name, while not strictly accurate was to my mind a good compromise title and was quite likely to be found by a casual search whereas MG Motor is not. Its a pity we can't just have MG but that is now a disambig page (with some staggering obscurity in it). I would like to move back to MG Cars. Malcolma (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who renamed it, I have put it back to normal now. --Thomas G 21:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Gilling (talk • contribs)

Chinese? British!
Even though MG is in foreign hands the HQ is still in the UK and the brand is british. I will change it to Chinese owned! --Thomas G 22:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Gilling (talk • contribs)

This article
This article was created to be about MG Cars, a now defunct British car maker. The brand it created does live on, but MG Cars (the original company) does not - it was absorbed decades ago. Other companies, including British Motor Corporation, Rover Group and MG Rover have owned the marque since then, and each have their own articles. Today the marque is owned by Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation which also has its own article, and which created a new company in the UK, MG Motor UK Limited to assemble cars. However, that new company is exactly that, a new company, so should have an article of its own. This article should not be converted into an article about that company. -- de Facto (talk). 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: no consensus for the move to this title. Article has already been moved back to MG Cars which there seems to be a consensus for as an interim solution. Dpmuk (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

MG Sports Car → MG Car Company — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC) As the current hatnote states, this article is about the history and products of the car business that was first incorporated in 1930 as the MG Car Company Ltd. According to Companies House, the original company (M.G. Car Company, Limited (The), to be pedantic) existed (presumably as a subsidiary of Morris Motor Co., the Nuffield Organisation, BMC etc.) until it was dissolved in 2010, so I propose that "MG Car Company" be the most appropriate title for this artice. Letdorf (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Car Models?
Why no mention of the VA SA and WA models? Or the KN come to that? There are some fine articles on wiki for an internal link.Tylexman (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC) In fact why not just look at http://www.mgownersclub.co.uk/mg-prewar.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylexman (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Weak neutral on the proposed title, however the current one is absolutely wrong and if this discussion doesn't come to a conclusion soon it should be reverted back to MG Cars while this is worked out. From the looks of it this article is as much about the MG marque as it is about the manufacturer, and I think MG Cars is the more common name. However, I could be persuaded otherwise. --Sable232 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article as it stands appears to cover three things: the original MG Car Company, which according to the article ceased to exist in any meaningful way by the end of the 1970s; the use of the MG marque by its various owners after that date; and the cars produced under both categories. MG Cars seems to me to be the most likely common name covering these usages. AFAIK, later British MGs were not built by the MG Car Company, but by BL/Austin Rover/Rover, so using MG Car Company for the article as it stands would be rather misleading. I too am open to other views as none of this is very satisfactory. 4u1e (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Another renaming
User LoyaltyCard moved the article to Morris Garages (Cars) without prior discussion so I have reverted the change. His logic seems to have been that the company is now called Morris Garages which it is not. Malcolma (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your revert, the MG Car Company was never actually called "Morris Garages". Letdorf (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC).

My suggestion
In my opinion，there should be 2 articles about the "MG",

1, MG (MG Motor UK Limited) : Car manufacturer, introduction of the current COMPANY which produces cars under the MG marque.

2, MG (car brand)：History of the MARQUE，it's previous owners (William R Morris→Morris Motors Limited→British Motor Corporation→ British Motor Holdings→British Leyland Motor Corporation→British Leyland→Rover Group→British Aerospace→BMW→MG Rover Group→NAC→SAIC) and introduction of all the models from 1924 to current.

Baidutieba985 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Too confusing. We already have

MG Cars (talk | History)

MG MGA (talk | History)

MG MGB (talk | History)

MG T-type (talk | History)

... after all, less is more –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 10:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ... need I go on?


 * I don't think the model articles are that relevant. We already have MG Motor for the current SAIC Motor subsidiary, and this article for the original company. I think that there is a strong case for an article on the MG marque as well. At present this article contains information on MG products made after the demise of the orginal MG Cars company. It is also worth noting that not all SAIC-related MG activities take place under the MG Motor umbrella. My preferred approach would be (1) this article for the historial company; (2) the MG Motor article remaining as is; and (3) the creation of an MG (marque) article covering the brand.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Look at the article Land Rover, it was owned by many companies but there is only one article for the brand, so is Jaguar Cars. So I strongly support the combination of MG Cars and MG Motor. It would be not so confusing, and it's good for the future of the MG marque.

Veritas-iustitia-libertas (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Land Rover and Jaguar are different as there are also companies with those names with a directly connected history to the respective brands. Here we have (1) the original MG company, which became defunct, (2) MG products made other than by the MG company after its demise (eg all the various MGs made by Austin Rover and Rover in the 1980s and 1990s, plus MGs made by MG Rover and now by SAIC), and (3) MG Motor, a new company established specifically to manufacture and sell MG products (but which does not produce all or even most of the MGs currently made by SAIC).
 * I strongly support the creation of an over arching MG article for the marque. However I also feel that both the original MG company and the new MG Motor company are notable subjects for articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Enlightenment requested regarding "domestication" and "tradition"
There seems to be an insistence to use the term "over-domesticated" to describe the MG TD in a caption of a thumbnail showing the MG TF. This is so despite the term not being explained either in this article or in MG T-type, which covers both the TD and the TF. It can't possibly have anything to do with being too heavily designed for the domestic market, not with home sales being less than a tenth of production.

Also, I suppose by the caption that having separate fenders (wings?) and a running board constitute being a "traditional" MG. I suppose that, if the "tradition" included having the actual radiator at the front of the bodywork, the TD would be the last "traditional" MG, while, if the "tradition" also included tall wire wheels and a solid front axle on semi-elliptics, the TC would be the last "traditional" MG. What, exactly, makes an MG "traditional" or not?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggested alternative captions:
 * "The MG TF was the last MG sports car with a wood-framed body, separate wings, and running boards." (assuming this is what is meant by being the "last traditional MG")
 * "The MG TF succeeded the TD, which had been altered to fit human needs too much." (based on the Wikipedia article on Domestication)


 * The problem with the first one is that I have no sources to verify the statement; this problem would go away if another editor has access to such a source and can cite it, or has access to a source showing the contrary, in which case it can be struck out for good and all. The problem with the second is that it makes no sense; it is, however, one way to interpret the term "over-domestication" as used in the current caption.


 * Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if I was going through sourcing EVERYTHING NOW, I'm not sure I'd start with image captions.  BUT, much to my surprise I just found a source for the adverb "traditionally" in this context.   See what you (and others) think and feel free to improve - preferably in line with the best bits of the surrounding discussions.   I quoted the source at greater length than I normally would in case (1) anyone is interested and (2) other editions of this book don't maybe use the same page numbers or (3) outside the UK (it's a British car) people find it less easy to get hold of the book.   But I do think the source carries reasonable authority.   And I shall not be surprised (or heart broken) if in due course someone prunes the lengthy quote in the source note.   I shall not even be totally devastated if someone else improves the whole caption.   Some more.   Well that (now I've done it) was the easy one. Now, someone else can apply some inspiration in respect of the other one.... Happy day  Charles01 (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The caption is now more informative and not confusing at all. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need two photos of the TF in the main company article when there is no photo of say the MGB or MG F which were made in much larger numbers.Malcolma (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think numbers produced should be the SOLE criterion for including a picture of a car, but it's an important criterion and I strongly agree with you about the MGB/C.  (Is the MGF a "real" MG?....or am I just showing my age here?) On the right side of the screen, across from  where the models are listed on the left side, there is a lot of white space just begging to be filled.   In wiki-commons there is an overabundance of pictures of all sorts of MGs including these.   A few are usefully good, though presumably we all have different opinions over which these are, and which are the most appropriate for each circumstance.   Hmmmmmm.   Best wishes   Charles01 (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MG Cars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503150232/http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?lcvcdvf.htm to http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?lcvcdvf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MG Cars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080904025031/http://www.autotrends.org/mg-not-in-america/ to http://www.autotrends.org/mg-not-in-america/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MG Cars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.aronline.co.uk/mgf.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150322202932/http://www.btcc.net/standings/manufacturer-constructors/ to http://www.btcc.net/standings/manufacturer-constructors/
 * Added tag to http://www.classicmgmagazine.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
Moved here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Why did you reverted my edits? What is unexplained in that? You can clearly see I added *Chinese owned British and a subsidary of SAIC motors. It seems more clear that its a chinese owned Brand rather before it was confusing that it is a British brand and many people get confused that it is a British brand and not a chinese. It was a british brand but now its owned by a chinese company. What to explain in this? You can clearly see that I updated a sentences and its nothing wrong in wikipedia because it could be updated by anyone. The meaning is not wrong and its now more clear that it is a chinese owned British brand. I request you to revert back to my edits. Thank you and I hope you will undo the change cause you reverted my edits. Badassboy 63637 (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I explained why in my edit summary. You gave no explanation as to why you made the change, and in my opinion the change, which did not add anything new, did not improve the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Badassboy
I have moved this communication from Badassboy to this talk page which is the proper place for discussion of the article's content.

"What's the reason you deleted my edits of MG motor[edit] Why did you reverted my edits of MG motor and what is *No and NO*? At least give a proper reason about why you reverted? And you can see that there is nothing wrong in my edit. I clearly mentioned that its a Chinese owned british brand as it is now more clear that's its a chinese brand and not a british brand. Do revert back my edits! Thanks Badassboy 63637 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)"

The first no was for you. The consensus doe not support your choice of words. Eddaido (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What are my own words? It's the reality that its a chinese owned british suv and we have to mention it in the first line so that readers can find out its a chinese owned british suv and not a British suv. SO lets change it! And they are NOT MY OWN WORDS because its the reality Badassboy 63637 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You have now been asked by at least three different people not to keep trying to change it. There is no need for any mention of China at all in this article. Eddaido (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Its product range was changed to re-badged Wolseley and Morris products.
Sable is anxious that I tell you you seem to be unaware of the origins of subsequent MG models. Perhaps you would please Sable and detail those you believe were new after 1935 and not built out of the Morris parts bins. I don't believe there were any but. . . 11:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  19:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

MG Cars → MG (marque) – Works better. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 03:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: This was originally proposed at 06:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC), with a slight error, was trying to move to MG (marque) not "?". Damn WP:MOBILEAPP! Now fixed. 90.255.6.219 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. "MG Cars" is only used in the title; at no point does it appear in the text. MG (marque) works better as a disambiguation; either way, "Cars" shouldn't be capitalised as it does not appear to ever have been referred to by that name. Couruu (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Just known as MG and not a manufacturer for most of its existence, but a marque used by other manufacturers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this article is not just about the marque, it is also about the MG Car Company which was absorbed into British Leyland and made defunct in 1972.
 * Perhaps we should split this article into two articles:
 * One for the marque, which was passed from the MG Car Company to British Leyland, then to Rover Group, then to MG Rover Group, then bought out of the liquidation of MG Rover Group by Nanjing Automobile Group, and subsequently used by SAIC and MG Motor.
 * The other for the MG Car company itself.
 * -- DeFacto (talk). 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead paragraph
, I am questioning. MG began as long ago as 1924, with the MG 14/28 model, which from the very start was sold as "our popular M.G. Saloon", and saloon is British English for sedan. As for coupés, those began at least as early as 1927 with the MG 14/40 model, and continued to the end of MGB GT production in 1980. The last MG "sedan" is questionable, but the MG ZT went out of production in 2005. So I have no idea why you are claiming between 1930 and 1972 and also state "this article is about the 100-year history of MG and the sedan and coupe era is not even half of the marque's history". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * M.G. Car Company Limited exists between 1930 and 1972, no? Kindly see MG cars. I retract my sentence of "not even half of the marque's history". What I meant to say that sure, they produce open two-seater sports cars, saloons and coupes for 81 years but didn't other companies produce loads of saloons and coupes as well in the 20th century? Now most MGs are crossovers yet this lead section did not accommodate that. Quite an opposite of WP:RECENTISM in fact, having so focused on the 'old' MG (pre-Chinese). And "best known" for open two-seater sports cars debatable and subjective, especially that they stopped making those. Instead of having these debatable wordings, readers could infer that MG is known for these vehicles via the Models section. Andra Febrian (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is named MG cars. It covers all cars having the MG marque, it does not cut off at 1972 and nor should it give undue prominence to the current Chinese cars. All of the MG models available at the end of 1971 were still in production when the MG factory at Abingdon closed in 1980, and one of these, the MGB, sold more than half a million - far more than any other car made at Abingdon (whether MG or another marque). About half of these were open two-seaters (MGB); the rest were fixed-head coupés (MGB GT). They are still a highly desirable and collectable car, I see two or three almost every day. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just clearing up that the company "M.G. Car Company Limited" existed between 1930 and 1972, and basically since then MG is solely a marque and just part of another company. Cutting it off to 1972 is not my intention, in fact I clearly addressed that the previous lead is too focused on the 'old' MG. Andra Febrian (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)