Talk:Rolls-Royce

Untitled
It seems to me that Rolls-Royce and Rolls-Royce (disambiguation) are both disambiguation pages and the reader would be better served if all the information was on a single page. -- I@n 02:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce was specifically created not to be a disambiguation page, but to give a brief overview of the major companies that use the name. When someone types in Rolls-Royce, they are very likely looking for the car manfacturer, and the page gives them agh-level summary, and links for more information. If they're looking for one of the other companies, the pointer to the disambig page is right at top. In addition, merging the page will re-create over 400 links that will need to be disabiguated. I therefore think the pages should not be merged. Simon12 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't believe that having to change links is a strong argument against - its nothing AWB can't fix. Better that we find the optimum structure IMO.  Certainly Rolls-Royce has more substance than a normal disambig page, but I cannot see how merging wouldn't make understanding the name and company structure a bit easier.  And how do you know that someone typing "Rolls-Royce" is only looking for the car?  -- I@n 07:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be no mention of the short lived Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. [anon - 10:35 09 Jan 09]

Transfer of information from defunct Rolls-Royce Limited page
Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am a paid communications contractor working with Rolls-Royce and have proposed changes to this page, as it offers little information about the company’s history. Relevant information about Rolls-Royce, its history and what each company does can currently be found on the Rolls-Royce Limited page – a company that no longer exists.

It would be clearer for anyone looking for information on any of Rolls-Royce’s history and businesses to find this information on the Rolls-Royce page instead, as per the proposed information below:

“Rolls-Royce is a British manufacturing business established in 1904 in Manchester, the United Kingdom by the partnership of Charles Rolls and Henry Royce. It is made up of Rolls-Royce Holdings, a multinational aerospace, defence, and power systems company incorporated in February 2011, and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, the current car manufacturing company incorporated in 1998, a subsidiary of BMW Group.

Portions of the company were bought by a government-owned company named Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited in the late 1960s which continued the core business but sold the holdings in British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) and transferred ownership car division to Rolls-Royce Motors Holdings Limited, which it sold to Vickers in 1980. Rolls-Royce obtained consent to drop 1971 from its name in 1977.

The Rolls-Royce business remained nationalised until 1987 when, after renaming the owner Rolls-Royce plc, the government sold it to the public. Rolls-Royce plc still owns and operates Rolls-Royce's principal business, though, since 2003, it is technically a subsidiary of listed holding company Rolls-Royce Holdings.”

For clarity, I also propose changing ‘Aerospace and nuclear power’ to Rolls-Royce Holdings plc, as the companies’ operations are not limited to these industries.

In alignment, ‘Automobiles’ would then be changed to Roll-Royce Motor Cars. Kwoolt28 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Kwoolt28, welcome to Wikipedia. Which of the current users of the Rolls-Royce brand are you working for? Have you edited Wikipedia with other user names in the past?
 * This is a disambiguation page to lead readers to the particular use of Rolls-Royce that they are interested in. I think the short description of each article already on the page is adequate for this purpose. I think the history of Rolls-Royce Limited rightly belongs in its article, it is the history of that company. The history of each of the companies currently using the brand started the day they started using the brand. For instance, the history of Rolls-Royce Motor Cars started in 1998.
 * For those reasons, I currently disagree with your proposal. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)