Talk:Mini/Archive 1

NZ Production

Note that whilst the article later refers to NZ production, in the initial listing of countries where the mini was produced, NZ is not noted. Would it be fair to alter the list to include NZ?

Sure - if you have the information. SteveBaker 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point was, is there meant to be a difference between the list of manufacturers and the later list of producers who stopped producing the mini in the early 1980's - is this, maybe, a differentiation between CKD assembly and complete production, so that the initial list only refers to countries where constructed 'from scratch' (rather than just assembled)?

Carburetor vs Carburettor

SteveBaker 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC) I reverted Marc Venot's change of the spelling of Carburettor because the version with two 't's is the British spelling - and this is a British car. We've been saying 'Bonnet' and 'Boot' and not 'Hood' and 'Trunk' - and I believe the Wiki policy is to use British spellings and words in predominantly British articles. Either way, we need to be consistent.

I agree Steve. This does not only apply to articles about britan/Australia etc, but also articles originally written in british english by it's editors should not be changed back to american-english just because someone else prefers it. Also could you please try to stick to the wikipedia style of new comments at the bottom of talk pages and signing your name at the end of your comments. --Martyman-(talk) 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Rearrangement

SteveBaker 14:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC) I rearranged the text to get a better time-wise 'story' and split up the longer sections somewhat so that the index will function more usefully. Also tracked down the date of the end of hydroelastic suspension (1971) and added some more material about the Monte-Carly rally to beef up the role of the Cooper'S. The bit about 'The Italian Job' seemed a bit thin in it's new location - so I added more stuff there also.

Split Page

SteveBaker 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) split the new/BMW MINI section off into a separate page. This article was getting too long - and the new car deserves a page to itself because it's really a different beast (heck, we have a different page for the MkI Mini). I've heavily cross-linked the two pages and added the term 'New MINI' as a redirect to 'BMW MINI' and added this link to the 'Mini(disambiguation)' page.

Postscript: Having edited about 650 links to Mini - maybe a third of them related to BMW MINI's - and are now directed to the new page - I'm now more convinced than ever that this was a good split. For example: As things were before - someone clicking on the link 'Mini Cooper' in the 'Electronic Stability Control' page would have ended up reading about a car designed in 1959. That would lead to a SEVERE misapprehension about the revolutionary nature of the Classic Mini!

Link Removal

SteveBaker 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) removed the link to "a quatrain by Michael J. Farrand" - of all the thousands of Mini sites we might choose to add as an informative or useful link, that ain't the top one. If we feel we need more links, let's carefully consider which are the most definitive, the most useful to an Encyclopedia reader.

Top Speed

SteveBaker 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) asks: Towards the top of the article, it says that the prototype Mini's top speed was reduced from 90mph to 60. I know that the prototype's speed was reduced - but not all the way down to 60 surely? My very original 1963 Mini (which has the original 848cc engine and gearbox) happily tootles along at over 70mph. This fits well with the top speed limit of 70mph in UK. Unless something changed between the 1959 and 1963 cars, I think the correct top speed for the very early Mini's should be 72mph (that corresponds to a 'redline' RPM of 5000rpm, a 4th gear ratio of 3.77 and a wheel circumpherence of 1.47 meters).

I'm reluctant to change the article myself because someone may well know better than me...

Merger

The mini/mini cooper Wikimerger is the the greatest merger in wikistory, costing 927,456,987,028 trilli-billy-gazillion wikidollars.

Seriously though, I deleted the "Mini Cooper" article and pasted it here, almost verbatim. I tried to paste every section in the appropriate place, but if I made some mistakes, please correct them. I also deleted the two lines with the link and phone # to the counterfeit organization, as IMHO WP is not the appropriate place to advertise, even for a good cause. Besides, the link to ebay is very temporary in nature. The lines can be retrieved from the history page as I saved it prior to deletion. -www.jpfo.org

==I prefer 'characterful',== since that seems a better synonym for the word 'cute' that says what I want to say, but doesn't feel appropriate. 'Stylish' to me refers to Mercedes sports cars, things you'd be pleased to park outside the Ritz, 'characterful' to cars that only *some* wealthy people would be happy to be seen in. -- Hotlorp

---

Why

is the new one called the Mini Cooper? Rmhermen 02:37 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

==: There are model names== besides Mini One called Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S. These models have more power than the Mini One. See data page for technical details. anobo 01:40 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I see. I don't think they are selling the Mini One in the US. Rmhermen 17:03 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, they are not - in North America they're only selling the Cooper and the Cooper S. (BTW, the name "Cooper" honors one John Cooper, whose team of engineers and mechanics helped the original Mini win a series of rallies in the 1960s.) -- Jim Redmond 23:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Second photograph?

Hi, all. Great article!
I wasn't sure whether another photograph was necessary, but I put it there so others can decide. Feel free to remove it if you think it's overkill.
Thanks, Rdikeman 11:56, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

I am usually against multiple photos, but in this case it works well because the two pics together give a good overview of the whole car. It might even be worth adding one for the new Mini - I might see if I can dig one up. Graham 12:59, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi to Rdikeman and Graham! I put the first pic on. I agree that the new pic is worth having because my view is rear three quarter and the new one is front three quarter. So we have variety!

Adrian Pingstone 15:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Austin Seven name

the Austin Seven (sometimes spelt Se7en) Looks like someone got this and the movie Se7en confused. TMC1221 01:42, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. My memory is dim, but I do seem to recall that the Austin 7 had a stylised badge that incorporated the 7 in this manner. I could be wrong, perhaps somebody who knows for sure can confirm/refute this. Maybe the movie people got the idea from the car - after all it was about 35 years later. Graham 04:48, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're right! TMC1221 23:25, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

SteveBaker 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) says: You can see the use of "SE>EN" in contemporary sales materials - eg from the second photo on this page:

  http://motoring.excite.co.uk/display/visualizzanews.php3?id=10583

The term "Se7en" can be found all over the owner clubs and elsewhere but I've never seen an actual car badge with it on - I personally doubt there ever was one.

We had a Mini 30 years ago and I'm pretty certain the badge on the bonnet said Austin Seven. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I don't think it was called a Mini, even then, and this was a 1967 model. Conversely, I think the name Mini-Minor had been dropped by then for plain Mini. The article seems to imply that Austin Seven had been dropped by the early 60s but I'm fairly sure this wasn't the case. Does anyone know for certain? I'll try to dig out some old photographs which might confirm this one way or the other.

But I don't ever remember seeing Se7en. I think this must have only been in early publicity material in the first couple of years of production. Adrian Robson 16:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the silly spelling ("Se7en") was ever badged on cars - but I have plenty of early publicity stuff showing it spelled either 'Se7en' or 'Se>en'. Looking at my carefully restored 1963 Mini (the one in the photo at the top of the article - that's sitting in my garage right now) there is no sign of 'Seven', 'Se7en' or anything like that anywhere on the entire car - or the accompanying paperwork. The bonnet badge just says "Austin" and the boot badge says "Austin Mini" - so we know for sure that 'Seven' was gone by 1963. Hence, I believe the article is correct in saying that Mini was used from 1961. SteveBaker 05:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies! I got that completely wrong. I've now dug out the old photographs and the badging is just the same as on your 1963 model. Maybe I was confusing it with a 1959 one owned by a friend. Sorry about that. Adrian Robson 13:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

More Photo Issues:

SteveBaker 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) says: The existing photo set didn't include a single shot of the front view of the classic Mini! We had a front view of a Clubman - and side and rear views of MkII's - but nothing of that classic front grille. There was also no photo of a Mk I car.

So I added a shot of my own Mk I that fixes both of those problems. I also rearranged the photo's into chronological order to better fit the flow of the text. We ought to have a colour photo of the clubman to replace the black & white one.

I'm also concerned that the three photo's of the modern MINI are all of blue cars - and there is no photo of the convertible. The middle photo has a lot of boring concrete in it - I think we should replace it with a picture of a non-blue convertibe.

Mini "Woodies"

This article suggests that the Mini and Morris Minor "woodie" estate cars were something uniquely British; I'd posit that they aren't. Only the tendency to paint the panels inside the wooden frame distinguishes the British woodie from the American; see the picture of the Pontiac woodie in that article. What do others think?

The wood on the Morris Minor Traveller and the Mini Countryman are decorative and fitted outside the body panels - if the wood was taken off there'd only be a few holes to show. Compare with an austin A70 Hereford Estate where the framework and unpainted wood panels are structural GraemeLeggett 12:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) (restorer of a Mini Countryman)

NB The wood on the Morris Minor Traveller is MOT-testable so presumably its structural Conch Shell 11:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I am wrong on this - It is Morris Minor = structural, Mini = non structural.GraemeLeggett 15:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Mini Moke

There is nothing here about the Mini Moke: which was a 'jeep like' version of the mini: sold in Australia and I only assume elsewhere as well. Does not have an article of its own as far as I can see. I am not qualified to write on it though!

--GPoss 10:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Also sold in the UK, and don't forget The Prisoner! I don't think it was a huge success, but definitely deserves a mention, if not an article of its own. Graham 05:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Two articles?

There are two articles on this car - the other is titled "Mini Cooper". I'm not sure technically how to do it without screwing anything up, but these two articles should be combined. Kevin in STL Oct. 14, 2004

Disagree. The two articles link each other and don't contain much duplicate material. Combining them would make this page too long and full of excessive detail about the Cooper model, but Cooper fans would not be pleased if it was cut down. Leave it as it is. Graham 05:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New MINI section

Isn't the second parragraph in the New MINI section redundant? Martyman 22:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "always written in capital letters" line is absurd. If "MINI" isn't an acronym for anything, which as far as I'm aware it's not, then writing it in all caps is a logoism, like writing "Macy*s" instead of "Macy's," and there's no good reason why anyone other than the BMW marketing department should do it. --Mr. A. 23:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not be correct in claiming that it's wrong to specify spelling of a product name has to be all in capitals. HOWEVER, that is precisely what BMW say about the MINI - it's everywhere in their product releases, FAQ's, Press releases - you name it. We may disagree about their insistance on that - but it is none-the-less a fact. Most MINI owners obey the convention - and the BMW/MINI company are very consistant about it. So - just because it's a mis-use of English - should we ignore that? Hell no! We're here to report life as it is - not as we would wish it to be. Should Wikipedia talk about 'Bud-light' (beer) rather than 'Bud-lite' because 'lite' is a misspelling? I think not. Furthermore - if we go around calling both cars "The Mini" we'll all get horribly confused. Talking about "The Mini" and "The MINI" does solve that problem. SteveBaker 02:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternate spellings are not the same as logoisms. If my name is Sandee and you spell it "Sandy," of course that's wrong. On the other hand, it would be silly for me to insist that the whole world should write it "SanDeE*" when there are perfectly good established conventions for how names are written and my way doesn't follow them. Many other companies write their names in all caps in press releases—you might be astonished how many—but that doesn't mean that publications have to follow suit. Anyway, surely there are other clear and sensible ways of distinguishing the BMW Mini from the classic Mini (hey, check it out—I just did). --Mr. A. 03:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternate spellings are indeed different from logoisms - but are they any more correct? Should we misspell a word just because Budwieser says we should? Should we capitalise a word just because BMW says we should? Well, sorry - but the answer is a reluctant "Yes". If you (or BMW) just came out and said you'd like your name capitalised weirdly - then that might not be sufficient for a Wikipedia entry to write it that way. But if you, your friends, the press, people selling merchandising, every single book written on the subject (yes, I own every single English language book about the MINI)...and pretty much everyone else capitalised it the exact same way then it would be downright ridiculous of Wikipedia to be the only significant work that did not do so. Not only would it be pedantic for the pure sake of being pedantic - but it would also be a massive disservice to the general public who would actually like to get some real information out of this encyclopedia instead of treating it as a lecture on the pedantic use of English (as you seem to wish). Use of English changes over time - and the rules on capitalisation are changing just as our grammar, vocabulary and spelling are changing - just as they've changed since the dawn of time. There is no 'Acadamie Francaise' keeping the English language from changing - the very popularity of English is it's ability to adapt. CamelCase words are used all over the place - where do you find that in your Victorian grammar books? Trying to hold back the tide is OK for someone writing books on English correctness - but here we are writing an article about a particular kind of car which everyone who has anything to do with it spells MINI. If we spelled it 'Mini', it would confuse the heck out of our readership who either know - or very much NEED to know that the "wrong" capitalisation is used to distinguish two very different cars that have the same name. Trust me - what you propose is quite ridiculous to anyone who knows anything about the car. If you feel strongly about it - complain to BMW - and when you've got them convinced, come back here and we'll fix the article. Meantime, go find one of the million or so other Wikipedia articles that actually NEEDS work and fix that rather than screwing up something that's already got the gold star and the 24 hours on the front page. SteveBaker 04:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't claim to know anything about the car. I only claim to know things about editorial style, along with some of the ways that corporate marketing departments try to manipulate it to get their products more attention.

As for pedantry, the original "always written in capital letters" line (which it seems that someone has gone in and changed) was pretty competitive. --Mr. A. 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Car and Driver spells it "Mini." Do the editors of that magazine count as people who know anything about the car? --Mr. A. 22:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So - are we going to have an edit war over this? You probably aren't going to agree with me - and I'm certainly never going to agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, that statement is a fact - and a useful one for our readers. It even has a citation to back it up (thanks to whoever dug that up!). Hence as far as I'm concerned, it has to stay - end of discussion. SteveBaker 03:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made a single editorial change to the article, so don't accuse me of starting an edit war. I'm trying to bring you the point of view of an editing and language professional. You're defiantly -- almost, I'd say, proudly -- proclaiming yourself immune to reasonable persuasion. Just be aware that BMW's marketing execs are grinning like hyenas over how zealously you've bitten onto their hook. They should be paying you for the added promotional value you're giving them.

As someone even more expert than me observes, "The companies and their trademark lawyers want you to duplicate their capitalization. They also want you to use the trademark symbol. They also want you to use the word 'brand' and a generic identifier to guard against the loss of their trademarks (journalists eat Big Macs; McDonald's lawyers might want us to eat BIG MAC® brand sandwich products). Are you going to give in to all of those demands? Do you want your stories to look like press releases?"

As for that citation, as far as I can tell, the only capital letters it refers to are the ones on the badge. --Mr. A. 01:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I give up arguing. If you change the article, I will revert it. Please leave it alone. SteveBaker 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

MINI in the movies

I know it was prominently featured in both Italian Job movies. I am sure it has been in several other movies. A section on MINI in the movies?

SteveBaker 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) says: The classic Mini has played a key role in MANY movies - but that's true of many kinds of car. The two Italian Job movies are special in that they were primarily funded as extended adverts - rather than the car being merely a prop within a movie that was planned for other reasons.

Nick says: This is not true. BMC, the maker of the original Mini did not fund the first movie and were in fact at best ambivalent and at worst openly hostile to the vehicle's inclusion.

Counterfeit Mini Coopers

This site was advertised on the History Channel this evening. I'm not sure if this is for real or not? I have my doubts, it sounds to me like the work of a creative marketing department at Mini.

JesseG 03:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is real. A marketing campaign by Mini is a probable answer to it. My own answer was someone made the DVD and the comercials and he would sell the DVD's to those who were curious enough to order it. --BRO_co03 19:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

SteveBaker 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) says: The counterfeit mini site is certainly a part of BMW/MINI's unusual advertising approach. There were previous campaigns in which they alleged that one of their designers had deliberately over-designed parts of the car in order that he could use them to further his clandestine efforts to build 30' tall robots...

 http://www.r50rd.co.uk/research/internal/v2i/engin/

There are a number of fake web sites associated with the supposed builder of these robots, a journalist who had supposedly discovered this work and written a book about it. There is even a fake book publisher's web site where you could theoretically buy this mythical book. Excerpts from this non-existant book were published in a number of motoring magazines in the US.

If you buy a MINI Convertible, they have you sign a fake 'contract' that obliges you to drive the car with the roof down 90% of the time. If somone catches you with your roof up, they can 'out' you by calling 1-800-DO-NOT-CLOSE - which is a HILARIOUS computer call system.

MINI have a VERY quirky advertising approach.

Nick sez: Of course the irony is that the new Mini-Cooper itself is nothing but a pastiche that mocks the genuine innovation of the original. A counterfeit if you will.

The Queen?

While I recall that the Queen once had a ride in a Mini with Sir Alec while on an official engagement, I'm not sure she actually owned one herself. Does anyone happen to have a source for this info?

How about a section on crazy modified Minis?

One thing that definitely separates the Mini from most other cars is the crazy conversions people have done on them over the years. It would be nice to have some photo's of some of the wackier ones.

If so, should probably go in a separate article.Graham 04:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I have added a new article List of Mini based cars. It is only a list, with a few links, at the moment and is incomplete, but it does give a warning about the size of the issue. Malcolma 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

External links out of control!

Is it just me or is the External Links section of this article out of control. It is not possible at first glance to even pick the official BMW/MINI webpage. I would suggest that this section either get's pruned down to one or two official links or needs to be better described and split up into categories (maybe by country). Maybe a new article about mini clubs should be produced and the mini clubs could be linked from there? --Martyman-(talk) 22:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging Mini and MK1 Mini production changes

I don't think this is a good idea. Lists like this are best suited to being in their own articles. An article would never get to featured status with lists like that in it. Also the producation schanges listed are only applicable to UK built minis. For example, in Australia we switched from the UK built Mk1 to an Australian built car which had wind up windows and various other improvements and never gained internal door hinges. --Martyman-(talk) 21:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You asked on my my talk page:

• shouldn't the merge tag be added to both articles involved?

My response is I agree. It should. That is why I added it to both articles.

I added it because the separate article seemed to add little value and other car articles do not seem to be split like this. But it is not a big deal. My initial intervention was because the title was not sentence case. Furthermore, I am not sure that Mark should be abbreviated as MK, I think it should be Mk. Perhaps it should not be abbreviated at all in the title.

It was only when I read the article that I thought it was a bit odd as a separate article. If others are happy with it, that is fine by me. Bobblewik 22:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, there doesn't seem to be a merge tag on the other article... I agree the title should probably be Mk1 Mini producation changes. All the moves seem to have created a number of redirects, double redirects and triple redirects that are quite confusing see [1]. Also your merge template links to a redirect. Why was the original edit history of the article lost? A better solution to this article which you seem to dislike being on it's own, would be to expand the article in question and make it a detailed article about the Mk1 Mini with an appropriate {{main}} link from here. --Martyman-(talk) 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, the earlier edit history is at Mark1 Mini production changes see [2] please do not move article through copy and paste, as it destroys the record of editors contributions. --Martyman-(talk) 00:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I created this page after a discussion on www.specialistminiforums.com. We thought there should be a main where the finer details of changes through production should be noted as this information is hard to find! Therefore I think it should stay seperate from Mini. The sources I have are of UK built cars, I'll add this in as suggested. Welcome contribuitons about cars for other markets. Regarding the MK1/Mk1/Mark1, the way it is most frequently written is in capitals; MK1. Howard81 17:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to ask an admin if there is anyway to restore the edit history for the article. Please try to limit any changes before this happens. Also we should finalise the articles location. I agree my books seem to use the abreviation MK1. Would there be objections to moving this article to MK1 Mini and expanding it to cover all aspects of the MK1 rather than just being a list of details? I will remove the merge tag from the main article. --Martyman-(talk) 21:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've made so many changes to the article afterwards that it's going to be tricky, there's no way to easily merge 2 edit histories. Perhaps a note on the talk page referring to the older incarnations is the best way to go for both copyright and history reasons.

Of course, you could ask a developer to do the merge for you, but they're typically quite busy.

Finally, I'll ask some more folks to see if there's anything I've overlooked. Kim Bruning 23:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I don't think it is worth wasting developers time over. I will post a note on the talk page that earlier edit history is a available at Mark1 Mini production changes. --Martyman-(talk) 23:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now moved this article to MK1 Mini and I will make a start expanding it. --Martyman-(talk) 23:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

US imports

The article says: "so most of the restored Minis now running in the US have been imported - typically from Australia or New Zealand where the climate has limited the amount of rust formation and left hand drive cars are available for relatively low prices." Erm, how is there any significant amount of left-hand-drive Minis in these two right-hand-drive countries? Could someone comfirm that people import them to the US from these countries, because it doesn't make too much sense... --Zilog Jones 17:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree I have never seen a left hand drive mini in Australia. But I am pretty sure least the early minis where very easy to convert from letf to right hand drive. I think the only new parts required are a new steering rack and new brake lines. Otherwise everything pretty much just unbolts and bolts in the other side. --Martyman-(talk) 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I've removed the reference to LHD. SteveBaker 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Engine orientation

In the book, "Alec Issigonis: The Man who made the Mini" by Jonathan Wood there is an interview with Jack Daniels who worked very closely with Issigonis over the byears. He insists that the engine orientation was changed on the prototype because the original reduction gears were overloading the synchromesh. That the carb icing problem was solved at the same time was a coincidence. I have changed the article accordingly.

Malcolma 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we make 'featured article' status?

This article is looking pretty good - and we seem to have achieved some sort of stability. So I was reading the requirements to make 'featured article' status - with the thought of nominating 'Mini' to get on the Wiki front page. I think we meet most of the criteria - except...

The one thing this article is seriously missing is verifiability. The guidelines say that there should be enough external references to allow the article to be fact-checked. There is no way you could do that from the external references we provide. At the very least, we have to reference books and web sites to back up the facts we've listed here. Notably, it's not enough for the article to have been written by 'experts'.

So can anyone suggest a proper set of citations (bearing in mind the rigerous demands for the exact format of such things) ? SteveBaker 15:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Having worked on several featured articles, I can tell this article is still a pretty long way from FA status. It needs extensive inline references (as you already realise) at least for any fact that is at all questionable (eg. production numbers/dates, info like in the section above, race results). References should be made to the most reliable sources available, which would probably mean someone having to make a few trips to the library to find authoratitive books to reference. It would be good to study De Lorean DMC-12 and Ford Mustang, (which are featured) and try to copy their style and layout. An infobox to group information at the top would be good, maybe {{Infobox Automobile}} as used on mustang. A preliminary list of things that may be pointed out at FAC would be:

• References
• Lists are bad. The varients list could probably stay but the awards list should be made into prose
• Image issues: The first image claims to be a publicity image issued free of copyright from the company press office. There needs to be some sort fo proof of that claim. The same for Image:Miniclubman.jpg.
• Several one or two sentence paragraphs.
• The bulk of the article is about the English mini and the different models produced there (though this isn't directly stated), while almost no information is available about production in other countries. I see no mention of the plastic bodied minis I have read about, or any of the multitude of other country specific models.

Also it would be a good idea to put the article up for peer review before attempting featured article status. Please don't take my critisisms in the wrong way, the article definately has been improving and is moving in the right direction. --Martyman-(talk) 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable comments - I take them all seriously, so I guess we still have a ways to go. SteveBaker 23:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Image:Miniclubman.jpg can definitely be replaced - a colour photo would be nicer anyway - I'll take a photo of a friend's clubman and contribute it. Losing the original sketch of the Mini and the photo of the prototype would be a serious loss though...we need to research that issue some more. SteveBaker 23:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is discussion made of the content of the image in the article. ie Some discussion of isignosis' early back of the envelope designs and the sketch is used to illustrate that section, then we can get away with claiming fair use without having to prove that it is advertising material or released from copyright. I agree the clubman image should be replaced, I may have some more photos floatign around somewhere I took at the mini birthday celebrations at silverstone in 99. --Martyman-(talk) 23:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I pursuaded a local clubman owner to donate a photo - it's not the best - but it's copyright free. SteveBaker 02:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that in this photo you removed the registration plate. There are a number of other photos in this article that show registration plates. I don't know if there is a policy on this or not, but might it be a good idea to go through them all and blank the plates? JeremyA 04:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's Wiki policy or not. But some people don't like having their plates in publically viewable photo's. So I not only blanked it - but also erased it completely from the image. The reason for that is that it was a particularly ugly Texas-style plate that's very atypical of the kind of thing you'd see on a Mini. It was also a retro-reflective plate that had just caught the light from the camera and was the brightest thing in the picture. So - all in all, I decided that since I had to blank the lettering out anyway, I might as well remove it completely. I'm still not happy with this photo though - if I can find a better one, I'll swap it out in a heartbeat. As to whether we should erase license plates as a matter of course - I'm not sure. If the vehicle owner doesn't want it publicised, I'm happy to paint it out - but if they don't care, I'd rather use an un-doctored photo. SteveBaker 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

References

If you are interested in adding references to the article, the latest format is to use Cite.php. Instructions for it's use are available at Meta:Cite/Cite.php. --Martyman-(talk) 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider using the above style as it is designed to make keeping track of refernces much easier. The references themselves are included inline in the text and the references section is automatically generated in the correct order etc. --Martyman-(talk) 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(Forgive a poor Wiki newbie!) I have no problem (in principle) with using that format - except that I don't understand it from the examples in Meta:Cite/Cite.php. I don't see how you enter the name of the journal or web site or whatever. In the example on that page, the name of the Journal "Popular Science" doesn't appear anyplace I could see in the output and all the links in the references point back into the main text. That documentation needs some better examples I think. SteveBaker 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin is an example that I have converted over. You can still use the smae template syou are using for formatting the refernces they are just included inline at the relavent places in the text in <ref> tags. The reference list at the bottom is auto created anywhere you place the <references/> tag. --Martyman-(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! That's all I needed. Let there be references! SteveBaker 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox at the top?

If the Infobox is at the top of the article - and if we use the Mk I Mini photo in the infobox - then the prototype Mini/Issigonis sketch goes under it. The problem with that is that the text that talks about the prototype is at the top and the Mk I Mini text is underneath - so the photo's don't line up with the text anymore.

That's why I put the Infobox next to the Mk I Mini text and the prototype photo above it.

The alternative is to put the prototype photo into the Infobox - but that seems *wrong* too - I think the Infobox should contain a photo of a typical Mini...not something that was never produced.

Is it terribly bad Wiki style to have the Infobox be a couple of inches further down the article?

SteveBaker 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never noticed an article with the infobox anywhere other than the top. I would garuantee that it would be complained about during a Featured Article Candidacy. I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point, the article may well undergo further re-organisation that may lead to easier image placement. --Martyman-(talk) 15:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

True enough - and it's possible that the Issigonis sketch will have to go anyway if we can't figure out a suitable copyright exception for it. SteveBaker 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the copyright on the sketch. If there is discussion of issigonis' design in the article, a fair use claim is pretty safe. --Martyman-(talk) 04:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Saloon or Coupe?

In the infobox there is listed under "Body Style" a coupe and a hatchback. As far as I am aware there never was a coupe and the only hatchback was the Italian Innocenti, a very different car. I have changed the terms to saloon and van which were made. (Arguably the van and estate were 4 doors, having two at the back!) Malcolma 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a plastic bodied mini that looked very similar to a standard mini but with a hatchback produced in some weird country, I just can't find my book that mentions it (and has a photo). I am not sure ti was actually called a "mini" though. --Martyman-(talk) 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

According to this online encyclopedia I consulted - er - I think it was Wicky-something - a saloon is the English word for a sedan. A sedan is defined as "normally" a 4 door - and "an archetypal 3 box car" - which the standard Mini most certainly isn't (but the Elf and Hornet may be). However, the coupe is defined as a 2 or 4 seat hardtop car with an interior volume less than 33 cu.ft (which the MINI certainly is) - that same article conveniently points us to a really official-sounding "SAE J1100" standard which defines the word that way. So - I unapologetically revert that edit to say "coupe". SteveBaker 01:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Mini is a 'saloon'. Dictionaries give slightly varying definitions, but the gist seems to be: saloon = enclosed body, 4+ seats, 2/4 doors and luggage space; coupé = enclosed body with sloping back, 2 seats with possibly 2 restricted seats in the rear, 2-door. I think all 3 box cars are saloons, but not all saloons are 3 box cars. Check out the definitions at: Cambridge Saloon, Coupe. Chambers Saloon, Coupe, or for US definitions: Merriam-Webster Sedan, Coupe. Also look at contemporary marketing literature, hanbooks and so forth, you'll see it often described as a 'saloon' or a 'sedan' there. -- De Facto 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Cambridge definition for a Coupe says "possibly sloping back" - the Mini fits their definition of a coupe perfectly. Their definition for a Saloon indicates the need for a separate rear storage area - well, the Mini has that - but it's not really identifiable from the outside. By Chambers' definitions, a coupe has to have a sloping back - so the Mini isn't a coupe. If you use the Merriam-Webster definition, then it's a coupe because of the tight spacing of the rear seats. However, if you go by the Wiki definitions, the Mini is most definitely a coupe because to be a saloon it needs to have more than 33 cu.ft of interior space - and it doesn't. Why I prefer the Wiki definition is (a) for internal consistancy within Wiki and (b) because it's backed by an SAE standard - which IMHO trumps the other vague and conflicting definitions from all of the other dictionaries. If we don't like the Wiki definitions for Saloon and Coupe - then they need to be changed because according to their definition, the Mini is a coupe. (Steve Baker - currently sockpuppeted as: 130.210.164.20) 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki definition of two door sedan appears to cover it adequately with: 'In the popular vernacular, a two-door sedan is defined by appearance and not by volume -- vehicles with a so-called "formal roofline" are called two-door sedans, while those with the more common sloping backlight are called coupes'. Does Mini have a "formal roofline" or a "sloping backlight"? I think the former. -- De Facto 11:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The SAE definition quoted in the coupe article is 33 cu ft of rear interior space which is the same as the Car and Driver web site. I have not got a copy of J1100 as it costs $59.00 to download, but reading comments on it leads me to believe that it is essentially a standardisation of ways to measure a car. It is not a Standard by the way, it is a "Recommended Practice" if that makes a difference. The Wiki Sedan articles says the rear volume is "a calculation made by multiplying the legroom, shoulder room, and headroom". On the Mini, leg room (minimum) 38.5 inches, shoulder room 44.5 inches and headroom is 33.5 inches. This comes to 33.21 cubic feet. So the Mini is a saloon, just as Issigonis said it was. Malcolma 10:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have over the years owned three Minis, two saloons and a van. I have never owned a BMC Mini coupe because there never was one. Coupe versions were made by several kit car makers but that is another story. The sales literature that I have for the Mini calls the car throughout a Saloon. The articles you quote on Sedans and Coupes are full of "generally" and "sometimes" and quite rightly so as body terminology is not a science but nowadays an advertising art. BMC and their successors always called the Mini a saloon so I think we should take their word for it. Malcolma 10:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Countryman and Travellers were estates and don't forget the flatbed pickup. GraemeLeggett 12:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding in context

I hope you don't mind me moving stuff to the appropriate (in my opinion) sections. I think the article reads better if related stuff is together. All design details aimed at increasing available space together - rather than random paragraphs dotted about with "The Mini had ..." and repeating or rephrasing "to maximise space" for each thing. Also changes for MkII should be in the MkII section etc. -- De Facto 12:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mk IV, V, VI and VII

A member of my local Mini Club (Mini's of Texas) read the article and complained that we don't mention the Mk IV, V, VI and VII Minis. I (personally) don't believe in using Mk numbers above III because the changes from one Mk to the next are microscopic compared to the upheavals between Mk I, II and III. Also, there is no good agreement about exactly which of these Mk numbers are "real". I see some places where only I, II and III are used, others where IV and V are also listed - and yet others where VI and VII versions are recognised. I even found one place that referred to the BMW MINI as the Mk VIII with the up-coming 2007 model being the Mk IX. So I'm pretty happy that the article only talks in terms of I, II and III - but I wonder what other contributors feel? Should we perhaps mention that this confusion exists - but stick to I, II and III internally? 130.210.164.20 21:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I was surprised to see everything from the 1970 onwards lumped under the MkIII banner -- is this a US thing? In the UK, no-one I've met would ever dream of calling a MkIV or later a MkIII, although from MkV on the mark numbers aren't used so much (newer models are often called "Rover Minis", sometimes differentiated as single-point injection, multipoint injection etc). Incidentally, I've never heard anyone claim that the BMW MINI is a Mini Mk anything -- to most "proper Mini" enthusiasts, it's a totally separate car (which obviously it is). 81.86.161.246 14:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I had quite a bit of heartache over this one. (No, it's not "a US thing") However when I started to look into it - I found that no two people could actually come up with a really solid definition of the mark numbers beyond III. LOTS of books stop at the Mk III - others add Mk IV - yet others extend that up to Mk VII or even VIII - but the changes they are talking about between those Mk numbers are frequently *TINY*. The truth is that the car changed one tiny component at a time. The change from Mk II to Mk III was very well defined and agreed upon by everyone. Beyond that - no solid agreement exists. But at any rate - the widespread disagreement means that this article would be a continually debated point - just how many Mk VII Mini's were made? Did some change to the style of the instrument cluster mean that this was a Mk VI or a VII...truly - it's better just to say "Nobody can agree" and be done with it.

Remember that "officially" the Mk numbers don't even exist. The Morris/Austin/BMC/BL/Rover manufacturers NEVER used the mark numbers in any formal thing I could find. This whole mark numbering scheme is something dreamed up on a more or less ad-hoc basis by enthusiasts and after-market parts companies. We all know that the front grille of a Mk I looks different from a Mk II - that's obvious. We all know that the ADO15/ADO20 thing is a big change - big enough to even require a factory ADO number change. But beyond that - the differences are microscopic. What *is* the difference between a Mk V and a Mk VI or a VI to a VII? I guarantee it's nothing like the change from a rubber-cone Mk I to a hydroelastic Mk I - but we didn't change the mark number then! So we don't change the number for complete suspension redesigns. We also don't change the Mk number for engine changes - there were lots of those throughout Mk I and Mk II - and we didn't change the Mk number. In fact, the only thing we've really changed it for is for major body redesigns...and there weren't any of those after the introduction of the Mk III.

So - whilst I'm happy to recognise that these other Mk numbers exist in some people's minds (and the article DOES make that clear) - we have to make a decision - and whatever we choose would upset someone. So - what do we do? What authoritative scheme should an encyclopedia article use? The only possibility is to acknowledge that beyond Mk III, it's a mess and not perpetuate it. I can list a dozen books that cover the entire Mini history and don't mention a Mk IV or higher - I have THREE books that talk about higher than Mk III - but they don't agree on what makes a Mk IV. I can't find a single book published after the introduction of the Mk III that doesn't mention Mk III.

That's enough for me.

SteveBaker 16:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Article movement

I totally disagree with the movement of this article from Mini to Mini (BMC). The word mini is used to describe the car much more fequently than anything else on the disambig page. The new mini article was originally part of this page and has been spun off in line with summary style. I intend to ask an admin to revert the move and put this article back at Mini. --Martyman-(talk) 03:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above, and if there is consensus I will move it back. JeremyA 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Return this to "Mini".

James F. (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please move it back to "Mini"! It could, at the top, refer to a new "Mini (disambiguation)" article. -- De Facto 16:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Since there doesn't appear to be any disagreement, I'll go ahead and apply the changes now. --Schrei 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The car wasn't made by BMC for it's entire life anyway - the only way we could have Mini(BMC) would have been to split the article so we'd have had Mini(British Leyland) and Mini(Rover)...and that way lies madness. I 100% concur with leaving it just 'Mini'. SteveBaker 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Article organisation suggestions

Hi Guys, great work on teh article it is looking better and better. A couple more suggestions from me. I think the article would flow better if the Cooper and Variants sections did not break up the flow of the MK1, MK2, Clubman, MK3 and New MINI sections, which seem to flow quite well as date ordered sections. I also think the new MINI section should be expanded a little with some info back ported fromt the sub-article. The Manual of Styel suggests a couple of parragraphs to summarise a spun off sub-article. --Martyman-(talk) 10:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is plenty of modern MINI stuff in the article. Considering why people would come here, I think it's either likely that they were looking for the modern MINI page (which we have covered with the first couple of paragraphs) - or because they were looking for the classic Mini and need to be enticed to read the rest of the story by flipping over to the other article.

I agree that the 'varients' section could be pushed out of the timeline - but cutting out the Cooper story is harder IMHO. We need to talk about the Mini popularity story in the time-ordered story - you can't do that without the Monte Carlo stuff - but you can't talk about THAT without having introduced the Cooper part of the story. Discussion of the engine changes is also difficult when you can't see how the Cooper's success story influenced the manufacturer to put bigger engines into the Mini not-Coopers. The Cooper part of this can't be relegated to a foot-note.

However, I believe it's perfectly possible to tell a coherent story without the need to mention Countryman, Pickups, Mokes, etc - so those at least could be pushed towards the end of the article.

SteveBaker 00:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Some questions the article doesn't answer for me

There are questions I have about Minis that are not answered here. If anyone knows the truth - we should add it to the article:

1. The early Mk I's were not called "Mini" by any of the companies who made them. So who first came up with that name and why?
2. The claim that the Mini never made money because of an accounting error seems very far-fetched. Where are the sources for this?
3. It's obvious that people have often consciously modelled the look of their cars after Mini rally cars - the common tendancy for people to cram as many driving lights as possible onto the front is evidence enough of that. But is it true that the wide-spread tradition of putting that particular pattern of bonnet stripes onto Minis started out as an imitation of the leather straps often seen holding down the bonnets of Mini rally cars? I've heard this said - but I can't find sources.

The bonnet stripes on the Mini derive from the Cooper Factory racing cars from the late 1950s on, which regardless of whatever class they were being raced in, were BRG with a pair of longitudinal white stripes on each side of the top of the bonnet that roughly followed the outline of the front of the car. This was carried over to their factory Minis when they started racing them, where they were quite prominent due to the Mini's front end design. I've never seen any citations to this effect, but if you observe the photographs of Minis from the early '60's on, it's rather apparent, and when I bought my first Mini in the early seventies, it was almost de rigeur, altho I personally never did take it up. I've never heard that Cooper put those stripes on originally for other than a distinctive identifier, most probably to spot their cars on the track from a distance. There was a long history in racing of painting different colored rings around the radiator intakes to I.D. the different drivers for quick spotting, and Rob Walker, among others like Cooper, also used a distinctive stripe on their cars. The stripes would've been horizontal if Cooper was imitating leather bonnet straps, as they first appeared on his cars with longitudinal engine placements, where the straps would've been on the side of the cars - Walker's white stripe on the front his blue cars is much more likely to be a stylized "bonnet strap" effect as well as an I.D. marker. Vanwall 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Is it true that the unusual practice of painting flags onto the roofs of Minis comes from the TV series 'Butterflies' in which the family Mini had a French flag on the roof? I don't recall ever seeing a flag on a Mini roof before that time - and yet now they are everywhere.

Nonsense. When in high school in Arizona in the early 70's, very far from Merry Olde, there was a close friend with a checkerboard flag on the roof on his Mini - he'd seen it in a an English racing photo from the mid-60s, and there were two other Minis in town with Union Jack roofs, both derived from pics of English Minis, altho my favorite was one later with the guy from Zig-Zag cig rolling papers painted on a nice 'S'. Minis didn't even start the fad - I've seen other pics from the late 50's, when the racing paint rules in Europe began to soften, that had other cars with national flags on top. I do think the Mini had such an inviting surface to personalize, tho, it really took off after that.Vanwall 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Why is it that Mini rally cars so often have square 'meatballs' (racing numbers) instead of the usual round kind? Is it because of the limited space on the doors?

Enquiring minds need to know. SteveBaker 05:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mini losing money thing is covered quite extensively in Jonathan Wood's biography of Issigonis. Apparently the entire Austin accounting system was suspect in not properly allocating overheads, and Austin under Leonard Lord ruled BMC. Because it was a small car and the market expects small cars to be cheap, the Mini was priced at the bottom of the market and the basic model allegedly lost about £35 a car. Ford bought one and costed it and realised this and the then boss of Ford Britain even rang George Harriman of BMC to tell him, as it affected the pricing of the Ford Anglia. Luckily most people did not buy the basic model and the De luxe versions made a (very small) profit. Malcolma 11:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The article currently says:

 "Sales were strong across most of the model lines
  in the 1960s, but the car never made money for its
  makers. It had to be sold at less than its production
  cost to compete with rivals. It is also rumoured that
  due to an accounting error, the car was always incorrectly
  priced and each sale made a loss for the company."

That's misleading (to say the least!) - it implies that the Mini was losing the company money overall. If they were actually making profits from the extras, that's a perfectly viable (and profitable) business model. You can think of LOTS of things like that. Every single videogame console sold loses money - which is made back on the games. That paragraph should either be deleted or more clearly re-worded. In the early 1960's, a base model Mk I cost £405 - the Super Deluxe cost £455 - and it's additions are *tiny* (I know - I own one - and I have the itemised bill of sale. The additions in the Super DeLuxe in 1963 were: Some chrome bits bolted onto the bumpers. Different interior door handles. Slightly more padding on the seats. Oil pressure and water temp gauges...that's *it*). Then those 'options' weren't really optional - they charged £35 for an AM-only radio, £15 for seatbelts (only lap belts at that!)...we're not talking 'luxury' options here! It ought to be easy to get the price up to £500 for a 'typical' buyer. With the £35 bookkeeping error - and maybe £25 it cost them to add those "extras". That probably meant they were making a 10% profit on a typical car...that's quite reasonable, I doubt many modern car makers manage a 10% profit margin. SteveBaker 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article? Is it time yet?

It looks like the drastic changes to the article have flattened out to small tweaks here and there. We have addressed (I think) all of the likely issues that might prevent Featured Article status. It seems that the first step towards Featured Article is to check against the featured article criteria. Let's see how we stand:

1. It exemplifies our very best work.

   I think it's better than quite a few recent featured articles...so 'Check!'.

2. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable.

   As far as I can tell, it passes these criteria...so 'Check!'.

3. It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects.
   • a concise lead section
   • a proper system of hierarchical headings
   • a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

   'Check!'

4. It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status;

   'Check!'

5. It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail

   'Check!'

The second step is to apply for Peer review. I'm going to ask for that now. SteveBaker 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Peer review is supposed to last one month - or will be ended after two weeks with no responses. So far, we have one response - which I'm attending to now. SteveBaker 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Year Linking is BAD?!

I'm getting confusing feedback about year linking. Quite a few of the FA candidates have been criticised for linking to year numbers. For example User:Spangineer said of the Joan of Arc article:

 "...the year linking seems inconsistent—unless there are extraordinarily good
  reasons for keeping a year link that isn't attached to a day and month, I'd
  suggest removing the link."

The WP:MOS section on links says we should avoid "low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century".

Mmm'K, but today's featured article on Zion National Park has every single year number linked - gratuitously IMHO. To be honest, I never saw the benefit of doing this. Does the fact that the Mini started production in 1959 make a large number of people want to read about other things in 1959? I kinda doubt it.

So - following the demand to 'Be Bold' - I'm dumping all of the date links from this article. SteveBaker 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

More WP:MOS issues

Are we over-linked? I checked with the WP:MOS. We would be over-linked if:

• more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
  • We have 3455 words and 127 links. About 3.7% -- CHECK!
• it has more links than lines;
  • Formatted for 80 character lines we have 322 lines and 127 links -- CHECK!
• a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence);
  • We have 19 occurrances of multiple links to the same article. I'm checking through them now to see if they are 'distant' or whether there is other good reason to have done it...MAYBE.
• more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
  • We have 5 red links - plus two from the BMC/Rover template at the bottom. That's about 5% of the links -- CHECK!
• low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.
  • I just went through and removed all of the year number links. I'm looking for other low-valued links now (and spotting some more high valued ones in the process!)

So - three out of five...I have more work to do. <sigh> SteveBaker 04:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the country links can go as well. Australia, Britain, Chile, etc are surely also "low value". Also the reference to the Movie Goodbye Pork Pie seems a bit obscure, am I alone in never having heard of it. I suggest its relevance to the Mini is miniscule. Malcolma 08:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the country links. But Goodbye Pork Pie is an unbelievably huge cult movie in Australia and NewZealand. The reason that you havn't heard about it (and neither had I until a few months ago when I was researching the Movies with minis in them list) is that AFAICT it's never been released in the UK or USA. I now have it on DVD (only available in Australia/NZ region codes so it's a pain to watch it here in the USA). It truly has to be said to be one of the two most important Mini movies. Heck, it's the only movie ever to be named after a Mini! But don't take my word for it. Check out the Wiki entry on Goodbye Pork Pie - it's being worked on heavily by a lot of people - that's a measure of how non-obscure it is in some parts of the world. I'm told that in NewZealand (where it was made), it's more well known than The Italian Job. It's essential that we link to it PRECISELY BECAUSE so many UK/USA Mini enthusiasts will never have heard of it. SteveBaker 13:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

One little comment: I saw Goodbye Pork Pie in the cinema in the UK when it was a new release, so it did get a general UK release. Wouldn't know if it has a more recent DVD release though. Graham 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - I think all of our links are good ones now (as per WP:MOS). Gratuitous date and country links are gone as are some other silly ones. I found a bunch of 'high value' links to add (mostly to parts of cars mentioned in the article). The few remaining cases of multiple links to the same page are all quite widely separated and seem well justified on the grounds that many people will not want to read the entire article - so they may miss an earlier link to something that would have been of interest to them. I also got rid of a couple of links that lead to disambiguation pages - and I made a start on changing links that lead to redirect pages so they point directly to their final destination...but it's painful. The red link count has shrunk a bit - but I can't find enough information on any of the remaining ones to write even a halfway useful stub for them - so those are gonna be red for a while I suspect. I rewrote a couple of troublesome paragraphs and removed the list from the 'Awards' section as per earlier advice. I hope everyone likes the results. I'm glad Malcolma had the nerve to blow away the bit about the Elf being made for the sporty market...I was never happy about that - the Elf looks like the antithesis of a sporty car! There hasn't been much feedback from the peer review request yet. I choose to regard that as 'A Good Thing' because it suggests that we're doing OK - if we don't get any more responses, we'll be done with Peer review in a week or two. Congrat's all around for making 'Good Article' status BTW - out of the million articles out there, there are less than 800 that are nominated as 'Good'...but it's not enough! I want 'Featured' dammit! SteveBaker 21:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternating left/right images

Sorry - but I really, deeply hate this change - it results in really narrow (and consequently, hard to read) text strips running down between the photos. I'm strongly inclined to push them all back over to the right - but I don't want to start an argument if the majority disagree with me. I don't see any kind of Wiki style guidelines out there telling us which is preferred style - but when we were listed as 'Good Article' status, the nomination comment specifically stated that our layout was perfect. Changing perfection is generally a bad idea. SteveBaker 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I felt that some of the images were cluttered together, and they gave rise to large gaps of 'white space' between some of the paragraphs, were not alongside the appropriate text, and gave the article a less than balanced appearance - but I'm not that bothered. - De Facto 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of photo's has started to overrun the amount of text - and that's the root cause here. I still have a little more text to add in a few places - which will redress that balance a little. I've also removed the photo of the kit car in an effort to bring things back into line towards the bottom of the article where the imbalance between text and photos is at it's worst. I hope that allays your worries a little - and I promise to work to improve things still more. However, I really dislike the alternating left/right pattern - so since you aren't that bothered, I've pushed the photos back to the right. Part of the problem here is that we never know how wide the reader's browser window is. If you have a very high res screen with a small font size and a wide browser window, the alternating left/right thing works quite well because there is always room between the photos for a decent amount of text. But with a lower resolution screen, bigger font and/or narrow browser window, the alternating pattern results in a thin column of text with just a few words on each line - which is near impossible to read. Forcing the images to be on the right solves that problem - but results in images not lining up with the corresponding text on wide/highres setups. I don't know how to fix that - other than to reduce the number of photos or increase the amount of text. (Which - weirdly - is what the Wikipedia image placement guidelines suggest we do!) However, gaps are inevitable for people with high resolution screens. Is there some kind of Wiki markup that prevents a new section from starting halfway through a photo that belongs to a previous section? That would at least prevent the photos from getting misaligned with the text - although you'd still get gaps in the text. SteveBaker 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks better already! I think the clue is to put the image tag at the start of the section/paragraph it belongs to and then worry about the necessary formatting afterwards. There is a way to force the next text to start after an image, put '<br style="clear:both;"/>' after the image, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Forcing a break. - De Facto 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Isambard Kingdom Brunel got Featured within the past week, with all images to the right, no adverse comments about it... I definitely prefer it :D --PopUpPirate 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also like the IKB article, I've created a timeline template which you might find useful - dunno if it'll fit in with this article but here goes :

--PopUpPirate 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a thing of beauty - but it's HUGE! Where the heck would we put it without disrupting absolutely everything? SteveBaker 22:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It works great on Isambard Kingdom Brunel down at the bottom, just not sure if it would work on here. --PopUpPirate 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - you're right. Alongside the See Also and References would work. The only slight 'gotcha' is that we have the honking great huge ROVER template at the bottom. I have a bunch of book references to dump in there just as soon as I track down all the ISBN numbers - that'll push the rover template down a ways and free up a lot of empty space over to the right of the references. I say "Go For It!". SteveBaker 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Awesome! With all of these extra ref's, the timeline fits like a glove! SteveBaker 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good that! --PopUpPirate 08:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to edit the timeline but there are two mistakes and a comment. The mistakes - at the top it refers to the Morris Minor and in 1964 the Coopse S. Comment - we have said that the various Mks after the III are not well defined but the timeline puts dates to them. Malcolma 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the Morris Mini Minor to the top of the time line and the introduction of the Mini as a separate marque in 1970. Can someone confirm the latter date as one of my references gives it as 1969. Malcolma 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated --PopUpPirate 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

MINI image

If a photo of the MINI is appropriate in an article about the Mini I think we need to find one without a MINI dealer's advertisment so clearly displayed on it. What do others think? - De Facto 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need one photo of a MINI - I have hundreds and hundreds we could put there - I'll look for one without any kind of advert. I know that some classic Mini enthusiasts are deeply antagonistic of the new MINI - and I can sympathise with their position - but even though one might find the new MINI horrible and hate that it came about in the way that it did, from an encyclopeadic position, we cannot and must not ignore it. The Wiki guidelines clearly tell us that we must have a paragraph or two about sub-articles - and in this case, a photo is CLEARLY required. But I'm happy to find an alternative. I'll do that tonight when I can get to my photo collection. SteveBaker 14:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK - I found a photo of another Electric Blue MCS that I took a couple of years ago (At 'Lake Cooper, TX' - appropriately). It's in similar pose to the old photo and has no adverts in sight - so shouldn't be too controversial. SteveBaker 22:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget that - I found an altogether IDEAL photo of 'twin' Mini and MINI parked together that had been donated to our club calendar on a 'copyright free' basis. There is truly no better way to show the difference between the two cars and to put a sort of 'handing on of the torch' at the end of the article. All very symbolic! SteveBaker 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for Featured Article Next Week?

It doesn't look like we're likely to get any more peer review comments - it's not exactly been a hotbed of critique or anything - and our 'two weeks of no activity' runs out pretty soon so we'll be dumped off the peer review list anyway. Is it time to shoot for FA? I honestly can't think of anything more to do - the article meets every criterion I could find - and if we keep pushing the words around, it'll start to get stale. How about we set a deadline to self-nominate next weekend? How about we each read through the whole thing carefully and try to confine ourselves to fixing grammar, spelling, etc? SteveBaker 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Gerrit submitted :D --PopUpPirate 13:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

References required

Although there are currently "more than you can shake a stick at", if verification is important, I think references are required for:

• The paragraph about "the Mini came about because of a fuel crisis", which although interesting, is not supported. - De Facto 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • At least a couple of the books already referenced talk about that - I can dig out a definite one for that fact - let me go and rummage through my book collection for a while. SteveBaker 12:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Facts, facts, facts

Jim Gambony from our local Mini club wrote to me about the article: "One nitpick so far for the article. Up near the top in the Mk II section it's stated that: "Production of the 998 cc variant ended in 1969, with over 55,000 cars sold" but in the timeline near the bottom it's mentioned that various 1000 specials were offered in the '70s, with the 1000 and 1275 converted to A+ blocks in the '80s. The 1000... is a 998 engine."

Did the 998 vanish in 1969 - only to be brought back in 1976? I gotta admit he's right - but I'm a Mk I kinda guy and I don't quite know what to do about it. Can someone clarify that sentence in the Mk II section? SteveBaker 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...and later, Jim wrote: "In the Cooper section it's stated that the Cooper ended production in 1967 with 12,274 cars built. According to Nigel Edwards ( Mini Cooper & S), The Cooper 997 was built between September 1961 until December 1963 with 25,000 built. The Cooper 998 was built between January 1964 and November 1969 with approximately 74,000 built." This seems like a major boo-boo. SteveBaker 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I"ve tried to sort this mess out - it seems that some text from the Mk III section had been transplanted into the Mk II section - very confusing. I think I have it right now - but I definitely need someone else to double-check what I've changed before we go for a FA nomination. SteveBaker 06:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FA Candidate.

Well, I self-nominated this article for FA status. Several useful comments appeared in the first few minutes. SteveBaker 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis

A delight to come across this article as it brings back memories of driving several Minis in the 60s and 70s. After making a couple of changes I now see that you're talking about Featured Article status. I think it would be a great article to be featured. I'm not really familiar with the criteria so I'm not certain whether it's ready or not - I would have thought it probably was. You've all obviously put a huge amount of work into it.

Having said that, could I add some thoughts about emphasis within the article?

1. This was a revolutionary car and seen as such at the time it was launched. There were other revolutionary cars (mainly the bubble cars) but the others didn't survive and the Mini did. There were a number of things that made it revolutionary: transverse engine, small wheels (my mother hated them! what horrible little wheels, she said) and front wheel drive. But if you had to pick one thing that made it revolutionary, it would probably be the front-wheel drive. It wasn't the first car to use it. The 1930s Citroen traction avant was some decades ahead. But the Mini was the car that changed the way the car industry built cars. When the Mini was launched, there were no front-wheel drive cars. Twenty years later, almost all cars were front-wheel drive - even Cadillacs.

2. It was the front-wheel drive that made the handbrake turn possible. I remember it being demonstrated by Timo Makinen at the time of the Monte Carlo Rally. This was one of the reasons they could drive so fast on ice and snow.

3. A couple of small features that might be worth mentioning. The first models were started with a button on the floor next to the driver's seat. This seemed really cool! I never discovered why this was but my guess would be that it was probably just for cost saving. Maybe there was no relay for the starter motor - just a thick wire running from the battery in the boot to the button in the floor pan to the starter motor at the front. Or maybe not, I really don't know why it was like this. Oh, and you dipped the lights with a foot switch next to the clutch. So you couldn't dip and change gear at the same time!

4. There's a reference to synchromesh but no mention of the fact that the early models (like other cars of the time) had no synchromesh on first. I remember a late 60s Mini Clubman was the first I encountered with synchromesh on first gear.

5. There's a reference to competitors being the Beetle and 2CV. This isn't really a valid comparison. The Morris Minor was the competitor to these cars - the Mini was from a different era, being launched around 10 or more years later.

So that's it. I think the intro just needs to convey a bit of the excitement that these cars brought to motoring (such fun to drive compared with their predecessors like the Austin A35) and the impact they had on the way cars were designed. Adrian Robson 19:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia is very bad at putting things within historical context. This is partly because policies such as "Neutral point of view", "No original research", and "Verifiability" make it harder: a Wikipedia editor can't editorialise, can't place their personal subjective opinion into the article. Wikipedia style is to instead report on others' editorialising and subjective evaluation. Thus the way to do it is to find sources that say what you want to say, and quote/paraphrase them and cite them. For example, in this article, contemporary reviews in the motoring press could be cited to show the impact of the car at the time, and more modern histories can be cited to show the current view of the car's influence on automotive history.

Requires a bit more research, but with a little work much of value can be added to the article.

What were the Mini's real competitors at the time? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. Here's one source for a start: {http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado15tunedf.htm] Then click on Mini on the left hand side of the page; then The Development Story - click Enter. It says: "Back in 1990, a panel of 100 industry experts and commentators voted it the most significant car of the century for Autocar magazine in the UK. This sentiment was reflected by the readership of the magazine who, when polled, also named it the most important car of the century, voting it ahead of such cars as the VW Beetle, Ford Model T and Citroën DS." Adrian Robson 20:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My classic Mini (1963) has the floor mounted starter - I believe it was a cost saving measure. To build the ignition switch with a return spring - and either to beef it up to carry enough current to power the starter - or to use a relay - would have been more cost than sticking a beefy switch on the floor - conveniently between the battery (which is in the boot) and the starter. The reason for the dip switch being on the floor is that it's actually hard to reach the main switches with a seatbelt on - and putting the dip switch on the indicator stalk would have made it more expensive - and (again) required a relay. Back in the early 1960's, these were VERY simple cars - absolutely nothing that you didn't utterly need. Synchromesh on first was a later addition. Bottom line here is that there have been dozens and dozens of thick books written about Mini's - in an (ideally-less-than-32Kbyte) Wiki page, there is only so much you can say. If we want to keep something close to the guideline length, we are already at the point where everything we add should mean that something else has to go. So this is a compromise between getting across the most important information without cluttering it up with microscopic detail. We also don't talk about the rope-pull door handles or the changes in the thermostat settings or a million other things that changed from one year to the next. So if there is good cause to dump something less relevent for something more relevent, we can consider it - but just stuffing more and more facts in here will just make it unreadable. SteveBaker 06:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't really mean to suggest adding all those points. I know there's a vast amount of stuff you could add. My only real concern was that the Mini's role in the development of car design needed to be right at the top of the article for the benefit of readers who know nothing about cars and may never have even seen a Mini. So I've added a few words to this effect in the lead paragraph and removed some words lower down so that the article is actually a net three words shorter! I hope you think this is okay.

It was fascinating to hear that you've got one of the Minis with a floor mounted starter. And it was gratifying to hear that my guess about the reason for it was right.

As for competition, the Mini initially didn't really have any competition because it was so revolutionary. The Hillman Imp was launched a few years later to compete with it but didn't survive very long. It seems that BMC management may have thought the bubble cars were the competition but they didn't survive long either. Interesting to compare the 2CV, though. These were such different cars, both of them ideal for their environment but pretty hopeless in the other's environment. In these pre-motorway days, Britain's roads were mostly winding though well-surfaced. France's roads, by contrast, were long and straight but full of potholes. The 2CV was great for this environment - if it came to a pothole the wheels just bounced up and down and you scarcely noticed it. However, driving a Mini in France, with its limited movement suspension, was torture as I well remember from a holiday there. (The sliding windows were also torture in a hot climate - you couldn't get enough ventilation. Whereas in the 2CV the whole roof came off.) But when the 2CV came to a bend it almost fell over on its side, (quite unsuited to British roads) whereas the Mini just clung to the road as if on rails. Such different cars, ideally suited to their own environments. The result was that Minis were rarely seen in France except in towns and 2CV were rarely seen in Britain. As for the Beetle, it was more similar to the Morris Minor and from the same era. Adrian Robson 11:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(Incidentally, my classic Mini is the green one in the info-box at the top of the article.) I've tracked down a lot of advertising material and magazine reviews from the early days of the Mini. In Britain in the late 1950's and early 1960's, comparative advertising was considered highly improper - so the ads don't mention ANYTHING about the competition. The magazines compared the Mini to the 2CV, the Fiat 500 and the VW bug. The 1959 VW bug had a 1200cc engine (versus the Mini's 848) - but it was quite a bit heavier and for all that extra cubic capacity, the Bug only managed 34hp versus the Mini's 37hp. So, with more torque, more horsepower and less weight, it comes as no suprise that the Bug and the Mini had the same top speed - but the Mini's 0-60 time was 26 seconds versus the bug's 32s. The Fiat and the 2CV don't have 0-60 times because they weren't capable of going 60!! Whilst the Fiat was lighter than the Mini(!!), it only had a 500 cc engine and produced a mere 18hp. I don't recall the numbers for the 2CV but they're pretty terrible too. So I think it would be fair to call the VW Bug 'competition' - but in the UK, the bug was not popular (for whatever reasons) and the Mini was a lot cheaper and more fuel efficient. With gas consumption being so critical in an age when fuel rationing was a serious consideration - the Mini would have annihilated the VW bug even if it was open competition. By the 1960's, there were serious competitors - but the Mini's "go kart handling" along with bigger engines and better brakes made the car vastly more fun to drive than anything else out there. That made pop stars, royalty, movie stars and fashion icons flock to this car in droves - that conferred cult status on the car which 40 years later has not really gone away. That cult status meant that people bought the car in droves even though it had become technically uncompetitive.

Even today - I own a tricked out 215hp modern MINI convertible with a 6 second 0-60 time...but it's nothing like as much fun to drive around town as my 1963 Austin Mini Super-Deluxe with it's whole 37hp! It's down to handling...that rock hard rubber suspension knocks spots off of modern suspension systems - and the car weighs so amazingly little that with modern tyres, you can't throw it off the road no matter what you do. But now consider this: If you put a 'Cooperized' engine with modern carburation and electronic ignition into a Mini, you can get 95 hp or more. The car weighs in at 1300lbs. A modern MINI has (stock) 170hp - and weighs 2600lbs. So - do the math - it's fairly easy to get your 40 year old Mini to have more power to weight and more torque than a modern MINI! I also own a 1973 VW bug - but it's a real *yawn* to drive compared to the Mini. It's handling is AWFUL - and even though it's engine has had 10 years more development than my 1963 Mini, the Bug's 0-60 time is WAY slower than the Mini's because the Bug's weight went up as fast as it's horsepower went up. A Mk III 1990's Mini weighs only a hundred pounds more than a 1960's era car yet has three times the horsepower of the Mk I! SteveBaker 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A few random comments.

Floor dip switch - this was virtually universal on British cars of the time.

Fuel rationing in Britain - coupons were issued to every car owner for a basic allowance with more available if you could prove it was needed for your job - and that did not include commuting. I cannot remember whether the rationing was actually enforced however. I'll ask some of my more senior friends. Identical coupons were issued in the 1970's during one of the Arab-Israeli wars but these were never used. I knew several careful hoarders who still had the 1956 coupons and dug them out just in case.

Competitors - don't forget the Ford Anglia. According to Jonathan Wood Ford had to reduce the price of this to remain competitive in the market. I think, but haven't got the figures, that it was the commonest car on British roads after the Mini. Foreign cars such as the VW were treated with great suspicion. As for the 2CV they were regarded as just weird and were virtually unknown. The Mini rapidly created a class of its own with the only competitor being the Hillman Imp. By the time the Mini was established in the 1960's the Morris Minor was something your Granny might drive.

Battery in the boot - the battery was at the back to improve weight distribution. Don't forget how bateries have got lighter over the years.

Switches - I'd forgotten how hard they were to reach. You could buy rather ugly unofficial rubber extensions to stick on the switch arms to make them more reachable.

What people didn't like about the early Mini - They were very critical of the "pudding stirrer" (as it was known) gear stick. The recirculatory heater. Issigonis is quoted as not believing in heaters - "If its cold put a coat on" - but then he loved making outrageous statements. Water leaks, the window runners and carpets were renowned for growing mushrooms in wet weather.

Malcolma 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• There are plenty of faults to be found in the Mini (especially the early ones like mine). The sliding windows are just hopeless - they jam up - they don't let enough air in and they make it hard to stick your hand out for making hand signals (which were still required on the British driving test as late as the 1980's). The (notorious) Lucas electrical system was crude and failure prone. For example, the car only has two fuses - one for ALL circuits that are active when the car is turned on and another for everything else. Hence (if as happened to me recently) something causes your windshield wipers to stall - the motor shorts out and EVERYTHING in the car goes dead! So yeah - the thing had a ton of flaws that would be considered fatal in a modern car - but back in the 1960's, they were considered a normal part of motoring.

  The battery in the boot thing is more of a space saving thing I think - there really isn't a lot of space under the bonnet. It should be noted that the modern MINI has the battery in the boot in the supercharged version - that's for lack of space too. But again, that wasn't that unusual back then. The VW Bug had the battery under the back seat.

  The switch extenders were a really popular accessory (I just scored a set on eBay - I'm so happy!)

  The magic wand gear lever is truly awful - but it made the car simpler and cheaper - and at the time that was designed, nobody remotely imagined the Mini as a racing car or a sports car or anything that would require fast shifting. Remember that they deliberately REDUCED the speed of the car from 90mph to 72mph...hardly the actions of someone expecting the need for fast, accurate gear shifting.

  Issigoniss's outrageous statements...well - yeah...he was definitely "out there". He thought that uncomfortable seats would make the driver more alert (I use replacement seats for road trips - keeping the original seats for times when I want to show off my Mini in 'original' condition!). He also felt that women shouldn't be allowed to drive - so yeah - believing that you didn't need a heater was the very least of his peculiarities! SteveBaker 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• The weight transfer by putting the battery in the boot is something I have read about but of course cannot put my hand on. It is not "original research". By memory, on the van/estate the battery was just behind the driver's seat but where was it placed in the pick-up? Malcolma 10:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor

Does anyone have any thoughts on which car was the predecessor to the Mini? Or maybe it's already been discussed and I've missed it. If so apologies. If not, I wonder if it's valid to say the predecessor to the Mini was the Austin 7 and the Morris Minor? Some might say that the Mini was so revolutionary that it didn't have any predecessors. But if you have to name something, are these the right cars to name? The Austin 7 stopped production in 1939 - 30 years earlier. So calling it a predecessor can only be because it shares the name. And the Morris Minor was still in production in 1971, so it was a contemporary of the Mini for 12 years - quite a long time in car production terms. And the Minor was a different size of car, too; the names Minor and Mini-Minor suggest that they were seen as different sized members of a family of cars.

The only car that I can think of that might be termed a predecessor in purely chronological terms is the Austin A35. I think it was the smallest Austin and the passenger version stopped production in 1959, the same year that the Mini was launched. So the smallest Austin in the range was replaced in 1959, with the Austin Seven taking the place of the A35. At that time the smallest Morris was the Minor, so the Mini-Minor filled a gap in the Morris range, rather than taking the place of an existing car.

What do others think? Adrian Robson 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Look in the Info-box at the top-right of the article, we list the predecessors as the Austin 7 and the Morris Minor (both have linked articles). In truth, the Mini was so revolutionary that it really wasn't a follow-on to anything else. The Austin 7 and Morris Minor were (respectively) the previous small passenger cars that the Austin and Morris had been making before the Mini. They shared the Mini's A-series engine - but had little else in common. SteveBaker 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• You are correct, the Mini did not really follow anything in the BMC range. The Austin 7 was long gone (20 years by the way, not 30) and the last very small Morris had been the original Minor of 1928-1934. Austin had the contemporary A35 that was a similar width and wheelbase but much longer overall and quite a bit taller but that was replaced by the A40. Also, calling it the mini Minor surely points to it being intended to run alongside rather than replace the post war Minor.

The really revolutionary thing about the Mini was its size, the engineering followed to make it work. The last really small cars made by Austin and Morris were the Seven and pre war Minor so the info box is right, though in the case of the Minor probably not exactly as intended.

Its competitors were in size, the small Fiats and in cost, the Ford Anglia. Malcolma 09:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Fiat 500 was the nearest Fiat to the Mini in the early years. It was not at all popular in the UK - although it was my first car (it truly was a horrible machine). The Fiat's top speed was 57mph and it took about 40 seconds to get up to that dizzing speed - providing you didn't have a passenger...need I say more?! SteveBaker 14:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps to clarify what was intended in the infobox. The problem was that the link was pointing to the wrong Minor. So I've corrected the link, though it's now pointing to an article which doesn't yet exist. Any volunteers?! I must say I still think that the average reader may find it odd that the predecessors to a revolutionary style of car are thought to be 1920s designs that went out of production 20-25 years earlier. I'd still argue that the A35 has a stronger case chronologically and technically. But I'm happy to defer to your reasoning. We just need someone to do some work on a pre-war Minor article! Here's an interesting link http://www.mmoc.org.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=64 . The alternative, of course, might be to say that it had no real predecessors. Adrian Robson 10:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Mini can be said to have had predecessors only if it replaced those cars (isn't "predecessor" related to "pre-deceased"?). The Minor was not replaced by the Mini - the Moggie lingered until 1971. The A35 was Austin's smallest car in the range but the A40 Farina is its replacement. The Mini is a new development in cars and has no predecessors - you can't point to any previous Morris or Austin models and say that the Mini evolved from it. GraemeLeggett 12:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to add - could the Mini Metro be considered the Mini's sucessor? GraemeLeggett 12:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Metro went out of production before the last Mini was made - so that's a little hard to defend! SteveBaker 14:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just been looking at the Metro page where it says that the Metro was "originally intended as a replacement for the Mini". It was also originally called the Mini-Metro. I think it was designed to be a Mini replacement but in the end the Mini outlived it. Does that make it a successor or a contemporary? I'm not sure. Malcolma 08:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's another hard call - we don't have an adequate definition for the term "successor" in this context. Websters' says "succeed: To come next after another; follow; ensue." - the Metro didn't come next after the Mini - it came during - and (mercifully) went away long before the end - of Mini production. I would say that while the Metro was designed to succeed the Mini, it didn't actually manage to do that - so I don't think it counts. On the other hand, the modern MINI went into production within just a few months of the very last classic Mini rolling off the line - it's quite clearly designed as a literal successor - and that's what it has proven to be. SteveBaker 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a good summary. I re-raised the issue because I thought there should be a record that it had been considered. I think now the whole predecessor/successor issue can be put to sleep. Malcolma 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

After an anonymous user put the Morris Minor as the predecessor to the Mini a few days ago, (replacing the Austin 7, I believe from memory) the table has now variously listed the Austin 7, the Morris Minor and the pre-war Morris Minor as the Mini's predecessor. It's clear from these changes that if it had a predecessor it's not obvious what it was. The only thing that stands out from the above discussion is that everyone seems to agree that the Mini didn't really have a predecessor. So I'll try putting this in the table and see if people think that's acceptable. I certainly think it's truer to say it had no predecessor than to say that the Morris Minor was its predecessor. Adrian Robson 09:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Everyone!!

It looks like we just made FA status!! Woohoo!

Thanks to everyone who contributed...it was worth the effort.

I added a request to place the article on the front page - taking the existing intro and photo without change.

See Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article

SteveBaker 20:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes for Mini/MINI owners.

FYI: I created some user boxes:

Code	Result
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User MINI}}	This user owns a MINI.
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User mini}}	This user owns a classic Mini.

BMC or BMW?

There has been some revert/re-revert going on about the section that says:

 "a second attempt to produce a four-wheel-drive vehicle, this time using
  a transfer case, which was cancelled when BMC acquired Land Rover;..."

The article is flipping back and forth between saying "when BMC acquired Land Rover" and "when BMW acquired Land Rover". I'm puzzled because the timeline template at the bottom of the British Motor Corporation article says that Land Rover became Rover but BMC become BMH before British Leyland swallowed up both BMC and Rover (and hence Land Rover) - so at no point did BMC acquire Land Rover. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that they were still dinking around with Moke/Ant/whatever designs when BMW acquired the whole mess in the mid-1990's.

So either the Leyland timeline template is badly wrong or NEITHER BMW nor BMC could be correct here. I'm betting this should be British Leyland.

Anyway - because Mini is up for Featured Article of the Day - which will be decided pretty soon - I don't want to mess that up on grounds of 'instablility' - I think the best thing we can do is to remove the entire offending phrase (which didn't read well and wasn't really necessary) until we can decide what's correct.

SteveBaker 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever - it may well have been BMH by then (that was after the merger with Jaguar, was it?). The operative point is the merger between BMC and Rover/Triumph - nothing whatsoever to do with BMW. "BMW" was a misguided correction by an anonymous poster, if you track back. -- Ian Dalziel 23:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your 'operative point' - the BMW 'correction' was in error - but so was the original BMC...well, whatever. It's history now - I don't think it was needed. SteveBaker 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. -- Ian Dalziel 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

BMW MINI article

FYI: The MINI (BMW) article made it to 'Good Article' status and is going through Peer-Review right now - with a view to shooting for FA status in a few weeks from now. If you have a moment to spare, please go to WP:PR and leave your comments. Thanks! SteveBaker 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Imported or exported?

A minor stylistic point. The text says: "Between 1960 and 1967, approximately 10,000 BMC Minis were imported to the US."

Were they imported or exported? In this context, I'd suggest "exported".

In the next paragraph, though, "imported" looks right in this sentence: "Minis that were originally sold in the US are becoming hard to find, so most of the restored Minis now running in the US have been imported..." Adrian Robson 11:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - yeah. I agree. I think the question is resolved according to who took the action. In the first case, BMC "exported to the US" but in the second case, enthusiastic restorers "imported" their cars. I'll make the change. SteveBaker 12:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we made the front page!

Mark your calendars - tell your friends! It looks like Mini will be on the Wikipedia front page on April 17th. (Depending on your time zone, it might be the 16th or the 18th).

SteveBaker 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey - we got bumped! April 29th now! SteveBaker 12:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

John Cooper connection

I have some quibbles with the info regarding John Cooper - he was a F1 Manufacturer's Championship winner, not a F1 Champion, as this implies he was a F1 driver. John Cooper's involvement with BMC was originally thru Formula Junior, where he was race-modifying the 'A' block for that series, and most of the original engine mods were borrowed from this endeavour. I have never read anywhere that Cooper's involvement was influenced by rallying - his emphasis was on track racing the Mini, which the factory was not really interested in until later. I believe Cooper had to do bit of an end-run around Sir Alec, (who wasn't really keen at first to hotrod the Mini), and went directly to others at BMC to get approval. The 1275 displacement was primarily driven by factory rally requirements, but was integrated into the existing track racing requirements to ease production, I believe. You might wish to mention the Mini's many successes in the British Saloon car races, where it won a number of class championships with Warwick Banks, John Rhodes, Richard Longman, and others. Vanwall 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with your comments on John Cooper - and on his interaction with Issigonis (Cooper: "Have you driven a Mini on the track yet?"...Issigonis: "No. Should I have done?") For sure the choice of the 1275 engine size was driven by homologation rules and the need to keep within various engine capacity limits for rallying - but subsequent enthusiast efforts to put bigger engines into the Mini (eg the 1.3l Metro engine - which physically fits into the Mini with no mechanical problems) have shown that the side-mounted radiator of the 1960's era would have been completely unable to dissipate the heat from it. Even today, if you want to run a 1.3l Metro engine you need high-tech dual core radiator technology, higher flow water pump and a better fan - you'll also probably need to run without antifreeze or a thermostat. That simply wouldn't have worked for a 1960's street car - for whatever reason they picked it, the 1275 turns out to be pretty much the limit for a practical car. We should probably say something about racing successes - but the article is already getting a bit long and I don't want to risk screwing things up with a major change just before it is due to appear on the Wikipedia front page (on Monday). I'll update the words around John Cooper sometime today (unless you get there first!). SteveBaker 12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Longevity of Production

I don't think it makes any sense to say that the Mini outlasted the Citroen 2CV and the Volkswagen Beetle.

For a start, both the 2CV and VW Beetle were in production long before the Mini began production. The 2CV started production in 1948 and finished production in 1990 (in otherwords it was in production for 42 years against the Mini's 41). Secondly, the Volkswagen started production in the 1930s (although full steam production did in the 1940), and finished production almost three years after the Mini, in 2003.

The argument that the Mini outlasted the VW Beetle in Europe is misleading. The makers of the Mini didn't have any production facilities overseas, so they couldn't move the production over there. It is more than likely they would have if they could, given the archaic, slow and expensive methods of production.

• Well, firstly it's a matter of CONTINUOUS production - there were several times in the history of both 2CV and VW Bug when production stopped - often for a year or more - or shifted to other companies. Secondly, the Mini most certainly was made overseas - in Italy and Spain there were full-blown Mini factories - often with their own varients of the car - in MANY other countries, Mini's were sent over in kit form and reassembled locally. The last beetle to be made in Europe was in 1978 - the last one SOLD in Europe was 1985. the Mini was made in Europe until August 2000 - so it's certainly correct to say that the Mini outlasted the Bug IN EUROPE. SteveBaker 21:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity of Photos

Malcolma and I have been discussing the new pickup photo. He had added a comment that the wheels were not stock (which is 100% true). I reverted that change on the grounds that virtually every one of our photos is of a somewhat non-stock Mini - and that changing the wheels to the 'Minilite' style is a VERY common practice - so why single out the pickup photo in that way?

That Pickup does look wrong (although not half as wrong as the previous pickup photo I put up there - I fondly imagined that they actually made them with a chrome grille late in their production - but the truth is that they never did. The problem is that the stock grille rusts very commonly and nobody makes after-market body panels for the pickup's front end. Hence a common fix is to put a Mk II body panel on there - hence the non-stock grille on the earlier photo. The new photo captures the spartan front-end of the pickup better than the previous photo did).

When I say "Minilite wheels" - I guess I mean wheels in the Minilite style. Mine have the same curved spoke design - but they are made by someone else. But looking at the photos in the article:

• Image:1963 MkI Mini.jpg - Non-stock wheel arch flares. Missing chrome trim on wheel arches and rocker panels. (This car actually has Minilite wheels now.) It's also BRG/W which is not correct for a '63 Mk I - it would have been Almond green with a green roof.
• Image:Mini traveller.jpg - Minilite wheels (non standard)
• Image:Riley.elf.arp.750pix.jpg - Minilite wheels (non-standard), missing chrome trim on wheel arches and rocker panels.
• Image:Mini countryman.jpg - This is actually a heavily refabricated countryman back-end welded onto a Mk III saloon car front end...where do I begin discussing what's wrong with it? Minilite wheels, wheel arch flares, white turn signals, body-coloured door mirrors, non-standard seats...I could go on! However, this car regularly wins show awards and captures the look of a Mini Countryman very nicely.
• Image:Mini pickup truck.jpg - Minilite wheels - wheel arches...everything else is good though. The yellow car just behind it has Minilites too!
• Image:Mini.bristol.750pix.jpg - This one appears to be stock - although I'm suspicious of the boot lid.
• Image:Mini clubman.jpg - Minilite wheels - missing chrome around wheel arches, etc. Missing door mirrors.
• Image:Mini cooper.jpg - This image is too small to really analyse - but I don't think those are correct wheels or wheel arches and there seems to be a lot of blacked out chrome.
• Image:Ljeto2005-085.jpg - Minilites again, non-standard taillights and wheel arch flares.
• Image:MINI cabriolet MJC.jpg - I don't know enough about these cars to tell what's original.
• Image:Outspan Orange.jpg - appears stock?! :-)
• Image:Minis of Texas Meeting Feb 2006.jpg - Every single one of those 5 Mini's has non-stock wheels and a BUNCH of other stuff "wrong" with them.
• Image:MINIandClassicMini.jpg - More minilite wheels - non-stock wheel flares...

If we have better photos, we should use them (but the article is going on the front page TONIGHT - so let's not screw around with it just yet!). SteveBaker 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Congrats...Alexbuirds 14:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This page appears to have been vandalised...

References to the "Hershey Chocolate Crisis" and the car being designed in 1996 as a result.

Alas, haven't a clue how to revert this to an older version, I'm mainly just a lurker here.

Doctor Sinister 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking to warn us - but there have been plenty of eyes on the article fixing vandalism within minutes of it happening. FYI, the easiest way to fix vandalism is to go to the 'history' tab, select the version of the article immediately before the vandalism, click on Edit - NOTICE THE WARNING MESSAGE THAT TELLS YOU YOU ARE EDITING AN OLD VERSION - but ignore them and just hit 'Save page'. This replaces the current (vandalised) page with the older version. It's a good idea to put "Rv:" (Revert) plus a description of what you reverted into the "Edit summary". SteveBaker 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeep is a trademarked proper noun

I believe it should be capitalized, and would submit that Jeep-like is not proper. I did not edit due to this being featured

That shouldn't have stopped you - lots of people have edited today. I agree that "Jeep" is a trade-mark - which is why I didn't capitalise it as a proper noun because I'm not talking about an actual Jeep (ie a noun) - I'm using the word as an adjective. Just because the word is trademarked doesn't mean you can't use it. You just can't use the word to market another similar product. I belive that saying that this vehicle is somewhat like a Jeep is OK. (IANAL). However, if you can come up with an alternative description of the weird Mini Moke that explains it as succinctly - I'd be very happy to change it. SteveBaker 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Aftermath of the Front Page

Well, our 24 hours in the dazzling light of the front page are over.

I analysed the results:

• Over the 24 hours on the front page: 110 edits!
  • 35 Vandalisms (plus 30 reverts)
  • 6 Poor edits (plus 6 reverts)
• So - eighty pointless changes and thirty good ones.
• However, almost all of those were minor nit-picks - changing links-to-redirects into direct links, tiny (and largely debatable) changing of phrasing, teeny-tiny WP:MOS polishing.
• Not one single new fact was added, corrected or removed - except for a 'Trivia' section that was added about Mr Bean's car then (wisely) removed again.
• The most significant and useful change was probably the placing of the correct accents on Timo Mäkinen's name.

I was amazed at the effect on articles that Mini linked to though - there was a HUGE increase in activity on almost every page we linked to.

SteveBaker 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Minis in Manhattan

is there a special concentration of Minis in Manhattan? Its not that uncommon to see minis here, and there's been twice in the last year in different neighbourhoods I've seen 3 (new looking) Minis parked nearby in the same street. Not sure if they were the classic or new kind Bwithh 23:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Places like Manhattan are ideal Mini (and MINI) terratory - they are great for zipping in and out of traffic and get good MPG numbers. They are less fun on long straight freeway runs. So I wouldn't be at all suprised to see three modern MINI's in a row - I would be more suprised to see three classics - unless maybe they all belong to one collector. If you actually care whether they were new MINI's or classic Mini's - just look at the photos in Mini and BMW MINI. SteveBaker 04:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A (possible) customized Mini

I know the article is full, but would it be possible to put up a link for a video of a custom Dalek Mini? [3] (And for proof that it's a Mini, go to: [4] )

Defunct manufacturer?

Is Mini a manufacturer, a marque, or a model? If it is a manufacturer then it is still going strong - manufacturing MINIs under BMW - they bought the Mini brand (and plant) and developed it into MINI. If it is a marque or a model then it does not qualify for Category:Defunct motor manufacturers of the United Kingdom -De Facto 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a marque, and a model'? probably not a manufacturer. Ericd 19:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'classic' Mini is a model (for sure) a marque (arguably) - but DEFINTITELY NOT a manufacturer, a factory or a company. The corporate timeline at the bottom of the article makes this clear - we had Austin, Morris, BMC, BMH, BL and Rover - but there was never a company called 'Mini'. On the other hand the modern MINI is a model, a marque AND a manufacturer - also a factory and a company (albeit a company that is merely a subsidiary of BMW). So I agree that Mini doesn't belong in the 'Defunct British Car Manufacturer' catagory. SteveBaker 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK that makes sense, I was quickly applying SteveBaker's logic about MINI. Should we therefore take Mini out of Category:Automobile manufacturers? Ian3055 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. SteveBaker 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Production figures for the Mini Cooper

How many Mini Cooper were by by Innocenti ? In France, they are far more common than the British made. Ericd 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the invaluable Unofficial Austin Morris Web Resource http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado161300gtf.htm Innocenti made 36,770 Mk2 and Mk 3 Coopers and 21,653 Cooper 1300s. The latter was an Innocenti only model made by fitting a 1300GT saloon engine into a Mini bodyshell. Malcolma 08:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this at least 40% of the production. Much more if you only consider the "large engines" Coopers... Ericd 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Monte-Carlo Rally and French judges

While I believe in some French influence in the decision. The Monte-Carlo rally is organized by the Automobile Club de Monaco, an independant state. I don't think the judges were only French. Ericd 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All the books I've read on the subject make it pretty clear that it was a French decision that a French car should win. Remember - it wasn't only the Mini's that were disqualified on technicalities - and the Citroen that won SHOULD have been disqualified on similar technicalities if fairness has been implied - but it was a French car. Since we are supposed to avoid original research - I'll quote "The Essential Mini Cooper" by Anders Ditley Clausager, page 45: "They, and other British works entries, were disqualified, apparently to allow a French car - Pauli Tivonen's Citroen DS 19 - to win Europe's most prestigious event. The French rally organisers appeared to doubt that the Mini Cooper S cars really were to standard specification, ....". Let's pick another book: "MINI" by Patrick C. Paternie, page 19: "A three-peat for Mini at the Monte was nullified in 1966 when French officials disqualified the Mini Coopers that had finished one-two-three."....If you need more quotes - I can certainly find them. Hence I'm reverting your change - these were most certainly FRENCH judges. If you have evidence that non-French judges were involved, I'd be happy to hear it - but I doubt most strongly you'll find it. SteveBaker 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Minis were disqualified by the "Collège des commissaires techniques". I can't trace it back to 1966 but as of today the collège's Président is a Monegaque. I don't believe it was different in 1966. Futhermore the decision was confirmed by the FIA. Thus writing French is a simplification. Ericd 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW "The French rally organisers" no reference needed... The organisers are definitely not French... even they rely heavily on on French "Automobile Clubs" for organization... Ericd 19:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We have references for 'French judges' - I quoted two of them and I can find more if that's not enough. We have NO references for not-French judges...we can't just take your word for it in the face of a bunch of respected reference books - it's just not right. Quote us some references - something we can go check. SteveBaker 23:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Monaco is a micro-state but it's definitely not France. When a source write "The French rally organisers" you can doubt of everything else. The decision was confirmed by the FIA you can check at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/21/newsid_2506000/2506863.stm. If the decision was confirmed by the FIA there's no doubt that it was finally confirmed by an international jury. Ericd 09:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I know Monaco isn't France - I've been there - my wife was born in France, not far from Monaco. However, the entire population of Monaco is about 32,000 people - how many of those are experienced rally car judges? It is almost certain then that most (if not all) of the judges were not Monaco citizens - and it's not at all unreasonable to believe that the judges were French. Your reference is one I'm aware of - it doesn't say that the judges were not French. In fact it says that "The Federation Internationale de l'Automobile in Paris said the iodine quartz headlights fitted on the British cars were not standard."...sounds like French judges to me. There is no doubt that the Mini's and the Ford Cortina were in breach of the rules - but it was a TEENY-TINY technicality that would never have been sufficient to knock a winner off the podium in any previous (or later) Monte Carlo rally. Furthermore, the Citroen that was finally ruled to be the winner was ALSO in breach of the headlight homologation rules. The driver of that car protested the decision (even though it was in his favor) and Prince Rainier of Monaco walked out on the ceremony in protest. By any measure, this was a grossly unfair decision - and you still havn't presented any evidence that the judges might not have been French. SteveBaker 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Ericd 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did - it has no bearing on this. SteveBaker 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look - you still haven't come up with a single reference that says something like "The judges who disqualified the Mini from the Monte in 1966 were XXX" (where 'XXX' is something other than 'French'). All you are offering is circumstantial stuff. I have FOUR books and one magazine article that ALL say "French" - and in all of my copious Mini book collection, I don't have a single one that says anything other than "French". You are telling me that you believe that all of those sources are wrong - but you can't offer one single book or magazine article that says that...not *ONE*. Until you can quote some really solid references (and they'd have to be pretty damned amazing to beat the highly respected books I'm able to quote) - it's a no-win argument. Wikipedia demands that facts be backed by solid references. I've done that - just the Clausager book by itself would suffice - it is exceedingly well respected as a trustworthy source of information about the Mini. I've even quoted two of those reference verbatim (see above) just in case you don't have access to those books. I'm doing precisely what Wikipedia demands I do in the event of a factual dispute. It's game-over for your position until you can prove that my references are bogus. Please - let's end this debate right here and now - until/unless you can quote us some reference material of similar breadth and reputation to back up your point. We'll need book title, author and page number - and a quotation would help. Thanks. SteveBaker 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Run flat tyres

This article says:

"...the 1275GT was the first vehicle to be offered with run-flat tyres; from 1974..."

And the run flat tires article says:

"The first vehicle ever to be sold with run-flat tires was the Mini Clubman and Mini 1275GT in 1969."

Can anyone check sources on the date and whether or not it was both models? Adrian Robson 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - good one! If I had to guess I'd say July 1974 because that was the first time the Mini got 12" wheels - and I believe that nobody ever made runflats in the bizarro 10" size that earlier Mini's needed. The run flat tires article probably made the mistake of saying "1275GT had runflats. 1275GT came out in 1969. Therefore runflats came out in 1969."...which is obviously fuzzy thinking. However, I don't know for sure... I'll read some books and see what I can find. SteveBaker 03:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - it looks like I guessed right - according to "How to Modify your Mini" by David Vizard, page 175: "The very latest thing in Mini wheels from the factory is, of course, the DeNovo 12 inch wheel. Basically this is a safety wheel and has the ability to remain perfectly drivable even in the event of a blowout. The 12-inch setup...." ...OK - so 12" wheels were DeNovo's. Now, flipping over to the Haynes Restoration Manual, we find that the 12" wheels came in for the 1275GT (only) in July 1974. So I think it's pretty safe to say that we got it right here and the run flat tire article needs to be fixed. I'm off to do that right now. Thanks for catching this one! SteveBaker 04:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)