Talk:Rover 200 / 25

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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge (with Rover 25)

I've suggested merging Rover 25 into the Rover 200 article, as the 25 was just a facelifted version of the 200.

An alternative would be to have 2 articles:

one, entitled Rover 200 (Honda based) (or a better title?) for the Honda based 200 models
one, entitled Rover 200/25 for the Rover-designed model, incorporating the last 200 model as well as the 25.

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

What do people think?

Note that i've suggested an analogous move for Rover 45 and Rover 400. Spute 11:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No comments, so i've proceeded with the merge. Spute 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea of having two Rover articles: one for the Honda based models and one for the British-designed 200-series/25. They are completely different cars afterall. CyanIsland (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a merge may have made sense at the time, but as the articles grow longer I am in full support of a division. The only problem is what to name the Honda-based page - any ideas?

⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions (for Honda based 200s, Rover 200/25 works great for the later ones):

Rover 200

Rover 200 SD3/R8

Rover 200 series - and have Rover 200 become a disambiguation page. I think this is my fav.

⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 'Rover 200/25' for the Rover designed models and 'Rover 200 Series' for the Honda-based models sounds perfect. The same could be done for the Rover 400 Series/45 models, too, as it would keep these pages in line with the 600 and 800 Series. CyanIsland (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I went ahead and created a page for the Honda-based models. It's called Rover 200 Series / 400 Series (as the second generation 200 and first generation 400 were the same car). I've simply moved what information was already on the 25 and 45 pages, nothing's been deleted and the Rover 25 and 45 pages have not yet been renamed. CyanIsland (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rover 200 / 400 Series is perfect. Good thinking. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the R8 and R3 Rovers 200s were not completely different cars - the R3 was based on a shortened R8 platform with Maestro rear suspension. See [1] Letdorf (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thinking about this a bit more, I don't think it makes much sense to group the SD3 & R8 together, but make the R3 a separate article. Either we have three articles, one for each generation, or we have one article covering them all, IMHO. Letdorf (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that it doesn't make sense to group the SD3 & R8 together; I'd prefer to separate them all but I'm probably alone in thinking that. I don't agree with the changes proposed on the Rover_400_/_45 page at all but it's too much hassle to fight it. CyanIsland (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither discussion exists in isolation since they're related articles with related issues... It's not intended as a "fight" Cyan, it's a discussion to try and reach consensus on how best to present the information in these articles. Reading the discussion here and relating it back to the debate over at Talk:Rover_400_/_45 Perhaps the best solution all round would be to merge all the content into a combined "Rover 200 / 400 series" page with sections covering each (starting at the rebadged Honda Ballade Rover 200 series and ending with the 25/45 pair?) What do folk over here think? Splateagle (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... but then it should really be titled "Rover 200/400/25/45" to cover all bases? And what about the MG ZR and MG ZS too? This is a tricky one. Letdorf (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not necessarily, the title "Rover 200 / 400 series" covers the bulk of its history, but is also clearly not the inividual model name. Pop redirects at Rover 200, Rover 400, Rover 25 and Rover 45 and then note the late model name changes in the respective sections. IMO the MGs would probably best be handled like any other badge engineered variant (see Singer Chamois, Wolseley 1100 etc. for precedents) Splateagle (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're underestimating the significance of the "25" and "45" monikers a bit. The Rover 400 name was used for just under 10 years (1990 - late 1999), the Rover 45 name was used for just over five years (late 1999 - 2005). Not quite a "late model name change", IMHO. At the moment MG ZR and MG ZS are separate articles - are you suggesting merging them into the appropriate Rover 200/400/25/45 articles (whatever they may be)? Letdorf (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

"Significance" to who though? The model wasn't changed again significantly after the name change, late model seemed accurate enough.

Back on topic, I think the priorities here should be:

1 ensuring the subject(s) of the articles are accurately represented,

2 ensuring users of the wiki can quickly and easily find the info they're looking for, and

3 ensuring contributors can readily see where to add/edit articles they have contributions for.

Points "2" and "3" are a real issue with the current structure: Content on variants of one vehicle family (the HH-R generation cars) currently exists in four places, meanwhile searching for Rover 200 or Rover 400 brings up no info on the earlier (SD3 & R8 generation) cars - info about which is hidden away in another article (signposted at the top of 25/200 but nowhere else).

As it stands I'd give it a month before some well meaning contributor starts adding sections to the 25/200 and 45/400 articles to cover the older cars which they'd (understandably) assume had been missed.

Regarding the MG variants, much of the information in both articles duplicates (and occasionally contradicts) the info on the sister model's pages so having separate pages seems to be hampering efforts to meet point "1" with no obvious advantage.

What are the perceived advantages to scattering this information among several pages? There's a lot of talk about them being different cars but we've covered that over at the discussion on the Rover 400 page and consensus there seemed to be that clarity of structure won out...Splateagle (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added redirecting links on the relevant pages for the time being, and I honestly think it works really well. The trouble with putting all these models together is that the huge amount of information on each of them would leave us with one humongous, meandering article whereas I think three more manageable articles works better. Especially considering there's still more information that can be added to for each model. I will say this, though, I don't think searching for 'Rover 200' or 'Rover 400' should automatically link to the respective Rover 200 / 25 and Rover 400 / 45 pages, they should instead link to a disambiguation page, but I'm sorry, don't know how to fix that! CyanIsland (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting the redirects as a stop-gap. As I said above the current articles duplicate each other a LOT so I disagree that a combined article would be unwieldy. Don't have time today but I might sandbox a mock-up later in the week to illustrate the point.

You didn't really answer my question though: what's the perceived advantage to splitting the content among so many articles? Especially when established convention has similar cases listed under one article, this is just baffling. Splateagle (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't actually direct that question at me, haha. Anyway, it's not "so many" articles, it's three logically named articles covering Rover's compact cars. I think we do need a disambiguation page, though. CyanIsland (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K-Series Head Gasket

I know the statement about the K-Series in the Metro/200 having alarming rates of head gasket failure is uncited but I recommend it stays. If my personal experiences are anything to go by, the K-Series engines in little Rover cars indeed having an alarming tendency to fail (and take the radiator with them). £500 the local greasepit wanted for a fix. And on a 1100 N reg. Good performmance though, really. Citation enough Plutonium27 (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not citation enough. Personal experience does not give any indication how common a failure like this is. If it is a serious problem sources can be found. Otherwise, it is negative unsourced material and should be removed. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about if it is linked to the K Series page? That (and any personal probs removed) enough? Plutonium27 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Australian mechanic and I worked on English rubbish for 35 yrs. If it's English it's rubbish. Exceptions: LX series Gardner, and Perkins 4.236 & 6.354.1. Bedford's were OK, and Fords, but then they're not English. Worst of the worst: Petter-Lister and Rover. Only Indian copies can possibly be worse than these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.237.29 (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion added to article space

The following text was added to the article by User:Pierce51/User Pierce62. I have moved it to the talk page as the appropriate forum for discussions.

I am not allowed to amend this site, however the car did not sell in tiny numbers - where did this suposed information come from??? Also it is NOT a small car, it is in fact the same size as a mark 3 ford escort, which is described as a small family car - where did that come from?????? Discussion is really needed here, don't you think?

Lozleader (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with Rover 200 BRM)

support - no need to have a separate page for 200 BRM IMO. Tubefurnace (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support - 200 BRM page content could be better presented within the appropriate generation's section on 200 Series page, can see no justification for a separate page for this variant Splateagle (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support --Typ932 ^T·C 15:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support - CyanIsland (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. That is enough support for me, so I went ahead and merged it. No information has been lost, but I also don't know enough to add anything. I have a feeling that possible data tables are best left to Cyan. ⊂ Mr.choppers ⊃ (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roewe 250/350?

Can someone point to any sources to verify the claim that the Rover 25 has been sold by SAIC as the Roewe 250 or 350? AFAIK, this is a Roewe 350, and it's not a Rover 25! Letdorf (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

My car is a Roewe 250. I bought it 2007 when it was built. And I still drive it here in Singapore. The link of the 350 shows the second generation of this model. --120.50.35.234 (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rover 200/25

I removed this unsourced statement:

Owners' main complaints about the interior ranged from relatively poor quality materials, to general fit and finish of trim although this is subject to personal opinion.

Not really appropriate unless there are sources for this or contemporary road test remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.33.106 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Allegro

Didn't anybody compare the shape of the Rover 25 with the Allegro. They're looking pretty similar in some kind. Honza (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rover 200 / 25. 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) 20:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rover 200 / 25. 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/20110802043903/http://www.thatcham.org/nvsr/index.jsp?page=202&s=car to http://www.thatcham.org/nvsr/index.jsp?page=202&s=car
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rac.co.uk/car-reviews/all/Rover/25/

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) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]