Talk:Roewe/Archives/2014

pronunciation
In German it would sound a lot like "Rover" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.239.42.209 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC).


 * If the chinese pronunciation is really what pinyin "Rongwei" suggests, it would be very close to "wrong way", did anyone think of that? --84.115.129.76 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

2006
"Roewe will be publicly launched at the November Motor Show in Beijing in 2006" - this needs updated. NotMuchToSay 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

United States
Americans would probably pronounce it Ro-və. 67.188.172.165 22:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roewelogo letter.jpg
Image:Roewelogo letter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roewe 450interior.jpg
Image:Roewe 450interior.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roewe 450concept.jpg
Image:Roewe 450concept.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

We might see a trademark dispute between SAIC and the Ford Motor Company over the Rover brand (Roewe sounds very similar to Rover) in the not too distant future
There has been a little bit of speculation on some message boards about what might happen if SAIC ever makes an attempt to import Roewe into the United States. I had originally added some things about it to the article. Maybe it was a mistake to put it there. it has since been removed from the article. I thought maybe it would be better to put it here in the discussion page so that people can comment on it and any other possibilities that might come about. At this time Ford has not made any final decisions about selling Jaguar/Rover/Land rover yet but if Ford does go ahead and sell some or all of these assets, Ford and potential buyers will need to take into consideration that who ever owns Rover might have some problems with SIAC if and when they export Roewe vehicles to certain countries. The only way this problem can be eliminated is if Ford sells Rover and Rover related assets to SAIC or if Ford and SAIC both agree to sell their Roewe and Rover related assets to a third company which would own both trademarks. Ford could also try to purchase Roewe from SAIC and/or enter into a joint venture/partnership with SAIC. These are some of the ways that this potential dilemma can be solved.


 * This is what was originally posted to the Roewe article before it was removed

The use of the Roewe name is due to SAIC's inability to buy the rights to the Rover name from BMW due to Ford Motor Company exercising their option on the name. The Roewe name and badge were meant to be similar to the Rover name and badge because of this. And for this reason SAIC might have big problems if and when it attempts to import Roewe into the United States as Ford might launch a lawsuit against SAIC complaining that Roewe sounds too similar to Rover (a Ford brand) and that customers might confuse Roewe with Rover. General Motors did the same with Chery as it was planning to export Chery vehicles to the United States. General motors complained that Chery would be confused with Chevy.

Now Rover brandname owned by Tata Motors --115.67.31.92 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Roewe logo cropped.jpg
Image:Roewe logo cropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

K Series Engine
The K-Series Engine is a petrol engine, Rover had an L-Series Diesel engine. I think the powered section needs changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.121.220 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Roewe 250 (error)
"The current 2007 model line-up from Roewe consists of * Roewe 250"

"There hasn't been any Roewe 250 released recently, even not a plan."

That are confusing me now. Is Roewe 250 available or not!? --Love Krittaya (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article Roewe 250 said that is only a name now, it may be a future automobile -- remove it in the line-up. --Love Krittaya (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rear Axle
Hi Guys,

Just thought I'd clear things up, the rear axle isn't actually a development of the BMW Z-axle, nor is it a direct descendent of it - It was a full rover design which took elemental ideas from the original construction. BMW had nothing to do with it other than to fund it. 77.100.14.241 (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

retooling of the badge
The badge is similar to the old but it is not correct this was to save retooling cost. To think we buy a whole car factory, ship across the world and then rebuild it but we save a little money to make new badges? This is very silly. The sameness of the badge is so there is a link with history. Thank you - Kitty Lee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.68.248.91 (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was so we could pop out the badge and fit a rover one instead.

United States
When will Roewe be coming to the United States? 169.233.59.10 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Move to common name
Shouldn't this page be moved to Roewe, per common name? The article also primarily concerns Roewe as a marque rather than as a subsidiary of SAIC.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Fleetham (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact I think the company infobox probably should be removed; I don't think Roewe is a subsidiary only a marque. Fleetham (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, move to Roewe, but keep the infobox. -- Pineapple Fez 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds perfectly logical. Will need an administrator as the Roewe page is currently a redirect. Roewe is a brand or marque in the same way as MG and SsangYong is so this can be dealt with better on the existing SAIC page. Some other marques retain an infobox so no need why Roewe can't have one too (such as Mini (marque)). Warren (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now put a G6 deletion request on the Roewe page as this probably fits within the non-contentious move category.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅  ceran  thor 02:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent deletes and confusion
Much valuable material was lost in Fleetham's latest series of deletions (for instance, why delete by how much the 750 was stretched? Why delete the AROnline reference?). Also confusions and outright misrepresentations have crept in, such as linking to MG Metro when the Metro as an entirety was clearly being referred to. Please take other editors into consideration, and discuss before deleting things in an arbitrary fashion.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe my edit improved the page. I:
 * deleted an outdated source that was contradicted by several more-recent sources,
 * replaced, "Tthe 550 was part developed by SAIC" with, "The Roewe 550 debuted at the 2008 Beijing Auto Show and unlike the larger 750 it uses a self-developed automobile platform",
 * added, "Much the engineering and design work for the car was done in the UK, and MG6 models sold there are assembled from knock-down kits at the MG Longbridge plant.",
 * added that the Roewe 350 is sold in Chile as an MG 350,
 * replaced outdated copy and citation for UK sales.
 * All other changes were copy editing that preserved the original meaning of the text.


 * Besides the Metro reference, I don't see how my edit can be objectionable. Do you have more specific feedback? Fleetham (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The deleted ARonline resource is very useful, see my recent edits. Some cites had somehow migrated into the wrong segment, which I have repaired instead of just deleting them. While some of your edits were indeed useful, they were also entangled with deletions of useful material (such as the mention of the wheelbase extension). I cannot go through your edits bit by bit, sifting out the good and the bad. That the 350 is sold in Chile as the MG350 was already included.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * replaced, "The 550 was part developed by SAIC" with, "The Roewe 550 debuted at the 2008 Beijing Auto Show and unlike the larger 750 it uses a self-developed automobile platform" - while adding some material, this does change the meaning of the sentence - it was part developed by SAIC, not self-developed. Also, it is factually incorrect, because the 550 sits on a shortened and modified 750 platform.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My source says the platform was self-developed and that while it was originally thought the 550 would use a shortened and modified 750 platform, it doesn't. I'm merely updating the article, and I don't know why there's so much fuss & bother. Fleetham (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since that source (from 2008) contradicts the existing text, you should not change the content without first checking who is correct. Here is a 2010 reference, an interview with MG's British marketing director Guy Jones (who downplays the connection, but still admits to using the front subframe of the 75), another one here which also mentions commonality between rear suspensions. Here are more, and another. When there are disagreements between references, one must do more research before changing article content. Please do take a bit more care with your edits in the future.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * After you've finished editing, do you mind if I replace my updates and changes? I won't include those you object to such as the MG Metro and the removal of the ARonline citation. Fleetham (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from introducing more errors.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take that to mean don't mind me replacing my updates and changes. I'll try to be more careful, and I apologize about the platform thing. The page says it's "outdated", so I didn't think removing contradictory information was a problem as long as what I was replacing was more current. I think what I removed was uncited, too. I could be wrong about that last bit, however. Fleetham (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if material is uncited, we do not just remove it without warning. The process is to place a "citation needed" tag on disputed data (not unreferenced, but disputed) and to wait a reasonable while for a reference to be found. You know this very well, because I have told you dozens of times.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the polite thing to do, but I didn't think it would be an issue; I trusted the source I used (which was wrong, apparently), and I apologize. And does aronline.co.uk fail WP:BLOGS? It looks like 1) a good resource and 2) self-published. Fleetham (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You just did the same thing again; deleting mention of the German word "Löwe" as an inspiration for the Roewe name. If you find resources and new content, add it, but don't just delete existing content.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ARonline citations
I believe ARonline.co.uk site fails WP:BLOGS. There's a sizable number of citations using that site on this page. A Google search for "Austin Rover Online" says aronline.co.uk is, "The UNOFFICIAL Austin-Rover Web Resource, THE place for all BMC, BL and MG Rover enthusiasts." The page looks self-published, says "Copyright © 2001-2011 Keith Adams", and while it appears to be provide a wealth of information, I don't believe it meets the criteria for use as a source. Fleetham (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only is AROnline useful, dependable, and trustworthy (getting to interview Guy Jones, for instance), but publisher Keith Adams is also Assistant Editor of Octane. So rest easy on that point.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ARonline is an excellent source and does not appear to be a blog to me. There are 14 named contributors... Warren (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a group blog or at least a "self-published source". The fact that it has 14 contributors might make it fail WP:BLOGS, as one way a self-published source can be used as a legit. citation is if the contributor is also published in a reliable source. This makes the person an "expert" and no matter where their material appears, it can be cited. It looks like out of the 14 at ARonline, only Richard Aucock and Keith Adams are published outside of this website. Fleetham (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like this source fails WP:BLOGS, as it is written by Adam Sloman, who is not published elsewhere. Mr. Choppers listed this source as being written by Keith Adams, but I don't see any author attribution.Fleetham (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about Sloman as he is published elsewhere! this source doesn't have any attributed author, however. Not all of that site's contributors pass WP:BLOGS. Since we don't know who wrote it, I don't think it should be used as a source. Fleetham (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to my removing the source per WP:BLOGS? Fleetham (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I object. What is to be gained by removing the reference? Clearly there are a team of writers with editorial control, so does not fail the blog or self-published argument. Warren (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLOGS. You'll see that because there is no author for the material on that page and that website has several contributors who can't be considered experts, it does indeed fail the "BLOGS" policy. I say let's just use an alternative source. This is what that policy recommends, "Take care when using such sources:if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Does anyone object to that? Fleetham (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only bits I don't think will be found in other sources are the facts that SAIC didn't purchase Rover tooling, that consulting firm Ricardo helped design the 750, and by how much the 750's wheelbase was extended. I think these fall into the category of "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." If you guys want the ARonline site included, why don't we put it in the external links? Fleetham (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly object. If you insist, take your issues with AROnline HERE, where other editors can see it.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be rude, but why must I? Isn't this talk page an appropriate forum? Fleetham (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrespective of where the debate takes place, it is clear that there is no support to stop using ARonline, so why not leave it in and move on with some productive editing? Warren (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's against the rules. I understand you guys seem to trust that website, but that doesn't make it more in compliance with WP:BLOGS. I don't understand why replacing it with more-reliable citations is objectionable. I've suggested putting it in the external links how about that as a compromise? Fleetham (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And, for example, the ARonline might very well be wrong. It's cited in the article for the 750 being a "highly revised" Rover 75, whereas the BBC calls it a carbon copy of the Rover 75 saloon. ARonline is also cited as saying the car was launched in Oct. '06, but SAIC says that happened in March '07. We can also very easily use more-reliable citations for those facts ARonline is used to cite:
 * 1. "The 'Rover' badge had been sold by Ford by BMW in 2006, which is why the new name had to be invented."--There's already a BBC citation for the inability to use the Rover name in the article. Why not use that?
 * 2. "After Nanjing's having taken control of the production line and hardware, SAIC had to build their entire operations in China from scratch."--Here's a BBC source for Nanjing Automobile taking MG Rover tooling. Let's use that instead.
 * 3. "English engineering firm Ricardo assisted, setting up a new company with SAIC in the UK, called Ricardo 2010, which finished development work on the 750"--This is what SAIC itself has to say on the 750's development, "The key to improve independent innovation capabilities is to break through in product R&D and truly grasp the core competitiveness. Therefore, SAIC integrated various resources. Based on the acquisition of the British Rover vehicle platform and engine IPR, the engineers of SAIC Engineering Institute and the former Rover engineers cooperated for two years for many second-time innovations including body structure adjustment, interior/exterior decorative modifications, and upgrading engine and chassis systems etc based on the Rover 75 platform, and made a large number localized improvements according to the road conditions, weather conditions and admicrostrative regulations of China." And here's a SAIC source saying that some engineering on the 750 was done in China by SAIC itself.
 * 4.The Roewe 750, launched in October 2006, is a highly revised version of the Rover 75, with the wheelbase stretched by 103 millimetres (4.1 in)."--Let's change this sentence entirely. The 750 was launched in March, 2007], and as the BBC has called it a carbon copy why don't we compromise and call it a "version" of the 75 as this BBC article does? The only significant improvements I can see from what SAIC has to say on the changes are "upgrad[ed] engine and chassis" and "body structure adjustment". I think "version of the Rover 75" is an equitable name considering these are the only substantial changes.
 * Why don't we make the above suggested changes? Fleetham (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just use the ARonline citation as sparingly as possible. Fleetham (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * AROnline states that the car was "launched" in October 2006, as can be seen in this contemporary link. That the car only went on sale in March is another story. Also visible in the pictures in the link provided is the extended wheelbase as well as heavily modified rear end - evidence that calling the 750 a "carbon copy" may not be entirely true. As for Ricardo's own material, Wikipedia usually distrusts what companies themselves have to say, preferring instead to depend on external sources. Again, I see absolutely no problems with using AROnline as a source, and until you can find some sort of consensus the references will stand.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here you are: "(2006) Oct. SAIC formally launched its first independent brand high class Roewe 750." - on SAIC's own website.   ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know any policy saying not to use official sources. You don't mind replacing the ARoline source with more-reliable, WP:BLOGS compliant sources where this can be done, do you? For example, using the pre-existing BBC source for the name. Fleetham (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, reliable, third-party sources". Okay, so official sources are out, but still does anyone object to replacing the AR cites when it can be done? Fleetham (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As stated repeatedly already, I do not see any need to replace AROnline references. Additionally, this unjustified harping on AROnline is making me feel that you are approaching being a disruptive rather than a constructive editor.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why replacing the ARonline citations should be objectionable. I think they all should be replaced except those, like the Ric. 2010 one, that can't because the information can't be found elsewhere. It probably is a trustworthy site, but why use a "probably" trustworthy one if there are certainly trustworthy sources that say identical things? Also, I want to change the 750 from being described as a "heavily modified" Rover 75 to a simply "modified" Rover 75. If you object to that last bit, please let me know. Fleetham (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that if an other editor made a similar fuss, you'd feel differently and acquiesce. Fleetham (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically I think we should try to get along better. I really do appreciate you couching your language in the way I suggested. On an entirely different note, does anyone object to my changing the 750 from being described as a "heavily modified" Rover 75 to being a simply "modified" Rover 75? Fleetham (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Name
The lead says the name is derived from the German for "lion" and the pronunciation of "rover". There's no reason to believe that the name is from the German for lion. The Chinese characters used in the name are "honor" and "prestige", and it is a transliteration of "rover". I don't believe the German bit is true. Fleetham (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, there's lions on the badge and this says it's derived "lion", but not German for lion. Fleetham (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And why not? "Loewe" means lion in German and is pronounced very similarly to "Roewe" when said by a Chinese speaker. Here are three references: Engaging China and AROnline and another. "Loewe" is also a Spanish maker of Louis Vuitton-esque handbags which are popular in China. It's harder to believe that "rong wei" should be transliterated into Roewe, but I think that they are both true. And, again, you don't just delete material - you place a "citation needed" tag and wait to see what happens.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And here come the Wall Street Journal. I would appreciate an apology and improved behaviour in the future.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If an apology would make you happy, I apologize. Fleetham (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was rong. I mean, "wrong" :D Fleetham (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)