Talk:MG MGB

Description

The car is actually the MGB, no space. The MG B was a much older model. Strictly speaking it should be MG MGB. --Gorgonzilla 01:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and MG MGB GT — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stock car as main photo?

The red B from san luis obispo that's currently the main photo has an aftermarket front air dam, possibly other modifications. I think perhaps it would be better to use a stock example as the 'type specimen' for the species. the next photo down, green, appears at a glance at least, unmodified, and also shows more of the car (better angle). if someone knows how to change this, i'd recommend it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.116.124.54 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Also, i'd not in fact noticed, but it's a gt. two problems with that being that mg technically considered it a different model (though most people and wikipedia, i think correctly, don't) and that the caption is then misleading, as the gt wasn't produced until several years after the b had been in production.

The main photo's car has the front turn signals turned backwards along with the second one (green MGB roadster). The later pictures all have the turn signal lenses on the correct way. It implies that there was a change in design during production, but there wasn't.

Nice writing ;-) It might be an idea to mention MBG being an icon of 60's, great popularity as an enthusiast car and also excellent parts availability, only second to VW Beetle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.93.160 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber bumper

Only one photo of the black rubber front end? Come on, boys. I know it's an embarrassment to the car's good looks, but it's a historical fact you can't sweep under the rug. --Tysto (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RV8

The section on the RV8 has been deleted as not relevant to the MGB. As far as I can see there is no article on the RV8 so I have replaced the section. The question is "Should the RV8 have a separate article or should it only be a section of the MGB article?" My suspicion is that the RV8 was sufficient of a new car to be treated separately but I do not know enough about it to be certain so I have refrained from creating a new page.Malcolma (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not alter the fact that it does not belong to an article on the MG MGB.— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not alter the fact that you've unilaterally deleted the section on the RV8 from the page which is Google indexed as covering that car, and indeed you've left in place a dead link back to here in the infobox - neither of which is very helpful to the reader. If you're adamant that it shouldn't be here then please do the reader a favour and shift the content into a new article and fix the dead links! --kingboyk (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the information on the RV8 belongs in the article, that's fine; but then construct a separate article for the RV8. Until then, the RV8 info should remain. PVarjak (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my responsibility to accommodate a subject which is ill-placed within an article. Any experienced editor would confirm that I am correct on this point. I have removed the offending section once again and suggest you leave it as it is, or do as you are asking and create an article. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an argument (even if I think it's wrong) that this be treated as a new model. (It's not really, it's the same car with a Rover V8 as in the GT with new body panels); but do NOT just destroy content. If you feel it warrants its own article, that's a reasonable stand; so then create a new article. As it is, people seeking some information about this model might find it useful to find it alongside very similar models. By your reasoning, the MGB GT (both C and V8 models) don't belong here either. Just because the nomenclature was changed to RV8 (obviously referring to the engine), does not mean it does not belong here. PVarjak (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my responsibility to create a new article on the MG RV8; it is yours. In the meantime it does not belong on the MGB page. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is your responsibility. Destroying valid content just because you (wrongly) believe it doesn't belong here is detrimental to Wikipedia. This is where someone would normally expect this car to appear. It's an MGB with new body panels and upgrades as per the new reference I added. Google it. It's no different than any of the other variants. I cannot stand people who unilaterally destroy content. Again, if you think it is separate (I do not) than WRITE A NEW ARTICLE. Yes, it is your responsibility if you delete this content.PVarjak (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the editing policies and you are violating them. Here's the first quote from Wikipedia Editing: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." This text is obviously salvageable. Second is this about deleting text: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. Either clean up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tag it as necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but preserve any reasonable content on the article's talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

Instead of removing text, consider:

   rephrasing or copyediting to improve grammar, more accurately represent the sources, or balance the article's contents
   correcting inaccuracy, while keeping the rest of the content intact
   moving the information to another existing article or splitting the information to a new article
   adding more of what you think is important to make an article more point-of-view balanced
   requesting a citation by adding the ^{[citation needed]} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline tags as appropriate
   doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself
   adding appropriate cleanup tags to sections you cannot fix yourself
   repair a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located
   merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge
   fixing errors in wikitext code or formatting"

That seems pretty clear. Do not remove content.PVarjak (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The RV8 is NOT an MGB. End of. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reversed an edit removing the RV8 section. Deleting accurate, reliably resourced information is poor Wikipedia etiquette. Moving it to a new article, however, may be appropriate, but until such time as an editor does so, it should sensibly remain here. Thanks Lynbarn (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on MG MGB. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MG MGB. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyres

The claim that all MGBs were factory fitted with Pirelli Cinturatos is palpable nonsense. No British car would have Italian tyres a standard and I would imagine that virtually all MGBs left the factory on Dunlop tyres, initially cross plies.(Ambak51 (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The Autocar road test of the MGB in 1966 (the only one I have to hand) says it was fitted with Dunlop SP41 radials. The line saying all MGBs were factory fitted with Pirelli Cinturatos is clearly wrong and the ref given does not actually claim this merely saying that Pirelli tyres were fitted to a range of makes of car including in the list MG (not mentioning the MGB). I have removed the sentence from the article. Malcolma (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Front- or rear-wheel drive ?

Oh, i see at the very bottom that this article fits in the Category:Rear-wheel-drive vehicles. —Jerome Potts (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MGC

Shouldn’t there be a separate page for the C? AFAICS It handled very differently, cost differently, and was sold concurrently, implying it was not a substitution fof the B. Jabberwoch (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ! The MGC, V8 and RV8 should each have their own articles. I belong to the Welsh Buzzard school of thought and, while I think about it, whoever called them a roadster? Eddaido (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]