Talk:Rover 400 / 45

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rover 400 / 45 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of a first-generation Rover 400 (front three-quarters view) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Merge

I've suggested merging Rover 45 into the Rover 400 article, as the 45 was just a facelifted version of the 400. I've suggested an analogous move for Rover 25 and Rover 200

An alternative would be to have 2 articles:

one Rover 400 (200 saloon) (or a better title) for the Honda Concerto/Rover 200 based 400
one entitled Rover 400/45 for the Honda Domani/ Civic based model, incorporating the last 400 model as well as the 45.

- links at the top of each page to redirect people to the other article

What do people think? Spute 11:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since no objections, i've gone ahead with merge. Spute 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible move but I have added a note that the last 45 model had little in common with its Honda origins (other than the body shape) due to all the changes that MG Rover made {mostly improvements in my opinion, although the last styling facelift is not to everone's taste). Cabinscooter 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

RD/X60

Shouldn't the RD/X60 have its own article? It was anticipated that it would replace the Rover 45, but there was no certainty that it would have been launched under the same model name. Letdorf (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Page title

This was recently unilaterally changed from Rover 400 series to Rover 400 / 45. I'd started unpicking the move but decided to start a discussion first. The name change seems to me to have damaged the overall accuracy of the page since it deals with the entire line and the "45" moniker was only applied at the end of the last model in the line. Any other thoughts? Splateagle (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonable to give both model numbers in the title. Following WP:NAME, I'd suggest something like "Rover 400 series and Rover 45", but that sounds a bit long-winded. I'd also suggest whatever we do we also apply to the Rover 200 / 25 article for consistency. Letdorf (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The trouble with the old articles relating to the original Rover 200 and 400 series was the fact they were easily confused with the modern 200 and 400 (later 25 and 45) models. It's why I took the information from the earlier models and moved it to a new page. This also made sense because the 200 and 400 of the late 80s/early 90s were the same car but with different body styles, whereas the late 90s/early 00s 200 (25) and 400 (45) were completely different. That's why they each deserve their own page (and it brings them in line with the 600 Series and 800 Series). CyanIsland (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just realised I made a mistake when I was editing last night! I must have forgotten to delete the original 400 Series information from the 400 / 45 page! That would explain the confusion, so I'm really sorry! I moved that info to Rover 200 Series / 400 Series for the reasons I stated above. I'll edit the 400 / 45 page now to sort it out. CyanIsland (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this is debatable. Is it better, in the context of WP, for the R8 Rover 200 and the R8 Rover 400 to share an article, than it is for the R8 Rover 400 and HH-R Rover 400/45 to share one? Should the model name be a stronger association than the vehicle's platform or vice versa? Perhaps Rover 200 and Rover 400 should be disambiguation pages pointing to separate articles for each generation, like the Rover 2000 page. Letdorf (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hm, I'm not at all sure about this moving the content to other articles business. Users search by common name, so vehicle model pages are usually arranged accordingly, even when there's no commonality between one variant and the next. Someone looking for the 80s/90s 400 series will look for Rover 400, and be brought here, where there's no mention of the car they were searching for. Worse, if they're a contributor they may well start adding content here that applies to the article now listed under a different title!

CyanIsland I can see your thinking now you've outlined it and totally appreciate where you're coming from, but the issue isn't whether the models "deserve" their own page, but arranging articles so that information appears where users will look for it. I'd strongly recommend restoring the previous structure. Splateagle (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone looking for the 80s/90s 400 series will look for Rover 400, and be brought here, where there's no mention of the car they were searching for." <- in which case we could put a link at the top of the page linking them to the correct article; like you see on other pages. CyanIsland (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone on another Rover article suggested we have a disambiguation page for the 200 and 400 which will neatly direct people to the page they need. That satisfies both sides of the argument. CyanIsland (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, you could restructure the whole encyclopaedia to redirect traffic to individual pages instead of presenting articles on a subject divided into sections. We don't have redirects and disambigs everywhere like that because it's better to put the information where it will be looked for where possible.

Have a look at Fiat Panda for a precedent here. The two cars are totally unrelated except for the name, but the information is broken into sections within a single article, and it works very well. You won't find fragmented other mentions of either car scattered elsewhere on Wikipedia because contributors can find the article easily and add to it. The structure you're advocating for the Rover 200 and 400 models breaks that information up onto scattered pages and that damages the possibilities for collaboration among editors enhancing the articles. That would be a price worth paying if there were a solid rationale for the split, but there just isn't. Neither model is being under represented by presenting them as sections within one page (which as I understand it, is what you mean by them "deserving" separate pages). Presenting them together grouped by the names they were marketed under (rather than shared mechanicals) makes far more sense. Splateagle (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Splateagle here - it seems that the usual convention in automotive WP articles is to group different generations of similar-named models into the same article, and then consider splitting the article if it gets too big. I think the Rover 2000 example I gave above can be considered an exception to this, as each different engine used in the Rover P6 and Rover SD1 series resulted in a different model name, therefore it makes more sense to have a single article for each family of models. Letdorf (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In that case can we keep the MkII 200 and Mk1 400 together? They were separated before but I've no idea why considering they were the same car except for the body styles. :-) CyanIsland (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point CyanIsland, they're essentially the same car so that should be reflected in the articles, but if we put the 200 content only on the 400 page we get the same pitfalls I mentioned before... How about linking these "sister" model pages within the header of the relevant section in each article? So the MkII 200 section on "Rover 200" would have a link to the Mk1 400 section on "Rover 400" and vice versa? Splateagle (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about Rover 200/400/25/45 is that one could choose to group the cars in so many different manners. Personally I like grouping the clearly Honda-based ones (200 mkI/mkII, 400 mkI) and the more independent developments (200/25 and 400/45) on three separate pages, but I can see where others are coming from. Maybe there should just be an article called Rover/Triumph compacts which would mainly consist of a link gallery to each of the various generations/iterations/names? Anyhow, providing sensible redirects and disambiguation pages is the key to the solution. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the HH-R was based on the Honda Domani, and the R3 had a lot of R8 components, so I'm not sure a "Honda-based" and "not-Honda-based" differentiation is a useful one here. IMHO, the least confusing ways to do it are either:

structure it by model name, and have two articles: a "Rover 200/25" article covering SD3/R8/R3/Jewel and a "Rover 400/45" article covering R8/HH-R/Oyster (plus the Australian 416i) - basically, as it was until recently. We also have to decide whether we merge the MG ZR/ZS articles in as well.

structure it by platform, and have four separate articles for the SD3, R8 (200 and 400), R3/Jewel/ZR and HH-R/Oyster/ZS. Where the 416i goes then is a good question.

Letdorf (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Forgot to mention we also need dab pages for Rover 200 and Rover 400 in the second case. Letdorf (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"structure it by platform, and have four separate articles for the SD3, R8 (200 and 400), R3/Jewel/ZR and HH-R/Oyster/ZS" <- best idea yet. By dab page do you mean disambiguation? If so, I think that's a good idea, too. The Australian 416i seems to best fit on the Mk1 200 Series page as they're the same era and production of the 416i had stopped by the time the R8 models appeared in the U.K. CyanIsland (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, dab = disambiguation in WP-speak. Not sure about putting the 416i in the SD3 page - they may have been contemporaneous, but have neither a model name nor platform in common. Best option may be to create a stub article for it and link to it from a Rover 400 dab page. Letdorf (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I never thought of that; OK, sounds like a good idea to me. CyanIsland (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letdorf's proposal of presenting the content in two articles fits best with the Wikiproject's [proposal] for a convention on this kind of issue, and - in the absence of a hard and fast policy - this proposal seems the best help available.

Two articles "Rover 200/25" and "Rover 400/45" also lines up with recognised "good practice" in the shape of featured articles. Look at some examples of where there have been similar mulitple name/multiple platform issues: e.g. Ford Mustang where multiple unrelated platforms share a single page under one name broken into sections chronologically by version, or Mini where the different marketing names used (Mini Minor, Austin Seven etc.) are mentioned in the article and linked via disambiguation pages... this also offers a good precedent for handling the ZS/ZR variants imo. Both the Mustang and Mini pages have been held up as Featured Articles in the past and that seems a good direction to head with these pages.

Two articles is less cumbersome than my earlier proposal of a single article, but also less fragmented than scattering the wiki with multiple pages containing the same information.Splateagle (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... we don't seem to have resolved this issue yet. I'm inclined to agree with Splateagle's point of view, but in case anyone else wants to express an opinion, I'm going to ask for comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Letdorf (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Uninvolved party

Before I start, I would just like to mention that prior to this, I knew absolutely nothing about these cars (I am from Australia). Basically, when I tried to work out the history behind these two cars (200/25 and 400/45) based on the current three-page setup, I was totally confused. It was not clear which models correlated directly, and which models superseded what. I almost gave up, but then I went to the Internet Archive and had a look at the articles in the previous 200/25 and 400/45 format and the above was immediately clear to me.

There is another proposal to separate the articles into four based on platform. While it is certainly a better alternative to what we have currently, I personally prefer to have two pages: 200/25 and 400/45—and this is coming from someone who would usually be all for grouping cars by generation/platform rather than name.

The Australian Rover 416i information should be moved to the Honda Integra article as a subsection of the first generation. It has no relationship with the 200/25 and 400/45 except in name. The target audience (Australians) will associate it with the Honda Integra, not these Europe-only models that were never sold in Australia.

Lastly, can the articles just be titled "Rover 200" and "Rover 400"? It seems to go against convention to include the "/ 25" and "/ 45". The infobox has an "aka" field for a reason, and the facelift name can be bolded and mentioned in the lead. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The 25 and 45 names were used for a significant proportion of the models' lifespans so it could be argued they should be in the article title, but if there is a precedent in WP for this kind of situation, then I guess we should follow it. Letdorf (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is hugely helpful input OSX - thanks! I think the structure you've outlined there (2x pages, "Rover 200" and "Rover 400" per precedent with the Integra/416 info moved elsewhere) is the clearest and best restructuring proposal so far, unless anyone has strong objections I'll have a crack at this next weekSplateagle (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start on this - feel free to tidy things up more. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Missed most of this, was initially opposed but now I'm on board. Moving the 416i to Integra was almost too obvious, wasn't it? ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the way the 416i was handled before was really messy, haha. CyanIsland (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rover 400 / 45. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]