Talk:Mini (marque)

An Observation About Capital Letters

I don't want to go over all the ground already covered in the MINI-Mini debate. I did notice, however, that if you enter Ebay, the correct capitalization, you get a redirect to eBay, the way the company prefers. I have always used MINI for the BMW produced cars, having owned two and I am a moderator on one of the largest MINI forums. MINI is the common usage for the newer cars, although I acknowledge the argument that it may not be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLA58 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2008

1. You are wrong, MINI is not the common usage, as demonstrated before.
2. MOS covers both MINI and eBay, see there.

--193.254.155.48 (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is MINI a "British automotive marque" or "owned by the german group BMW"?

The edit war over those two phrases is counter-productive. We need to restore the article to the pre-edit-war state ("British automotive marque") and discuss whether it's right or not - then, after consensus is reached, adjust the article wording accordingly.

So - what are the facts? MINI is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW (UK) Ltd and BMW (UK) Manufacturing Ltd...which are both British companies - whose stocks are traded on the London Stock Exchange. According to their website: BMW (UK) Ltd is registered in England and Wales with company number 1378137 and BMW (UK) Manufacturing Ltd in England under company number 01213133. Both have thir offices at Ellesfield Avenue, Bracknell, RG12 8TA. BMW (UK) Ltd also owns Rolls-Royce Motor Cars. The two BMW (UK) companies, in turn owned by BMW (UK) Holdings Ltd, which is in turn owned by BMW AG - which is a German "holding" company. Shares are owned by both the UK and German holding companies.

MINIs' main factory is in Oxford the UK - and was a part of the British Rover Group - which BMW bought, and then sold - retaining the factory and the "Mini" name.

So the "german connection" is there - but it's kinda tenuous. Between BMW headquarters and MINI, there are two layers of holding company and either one or two layers of management company. Shares in the "UK" bits of BMW are independently traded in the UK.

From all that, we might reasonably say that MINI is a British company...at least to the extent that "American companies" with huge amounts of stock owned by China are not "Chinese companies".

The main contrary evidence is that MINI cars have a "W" in their VIN number - which is the company code for Germany.

Given the history of the MINI marque (from Austin/Morris in 1959, via British Leyland and Rover up to 2001) - and the way they market their product as being "uniquely British" - I think we're safe in saying that MINI is a "British automotive marque". If you visit a MINI dealership, you won't see a BMW logo anywhere - and if you own a MINI, you'll be very hard-pressed to find a BMW logo anywhere on or within the car.

Whether it's "owned by the german group BMW" is a much trickier question that could only be resolved by figuring out who owns what shares in that messy chain of holding companies. Saying that it's "a part of the BMW group" is a much safer statement.

Hence, I believe that User:Rangoon11's version of the lede section is the best we can do - and User:86.75.127.141 should desist from changing the article back...at least not without strong consensus here.

At any rate, edit warring must stop...right now - or we must find an admin to wield a big stick.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, and thanks for the background on the location of the direct holding companies, which I was personally unaware of.

However even were the location of the direct holding companies in Germany, I would still be of the firm opinion that Mini is a British marque (which is very different from saying that it is a British company). Lucky Strike is in my view an American brand, despite being owned by a British company. The Times is in my view a British brand, despite being owned by an American company. Gucci is in my view an Italian brand, despite being owned by a French company. Alfred Dunhill is in my view a British brand, despite being owned by a Swiss company. And Opel is in my view a German brand, despite being owned by an American company. A great many more examples could be given.

The nationality of a brand, in my view, is quite separate from the nationality of ownership of the brand, and is dependent upon the origins, history and identity of the brand. It is not necessary for the product to even be made in the nation of origin - Opels made outside of Germany are still Opels, Lucky Strikes made outside of the U.S. are still Luckies. If The Coca-Cola Company were tomorrow taken over by a Chinese company, Coca-Cola would not become a Chinese drink. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument quite lacks substance. If The Coca-Cola Company were tomorrow taken over by a Chinese company, and the new Coca-Cola they were selling was a completely different drink with new ingredients, design and label, it would become a Chinese drink indeed. The MINI was created by BMW, has a rear wheel drive and the design was developed by BMW Designworks. The Mini and MINI are two totally different cars. The article also doesn't need all that Mini introduction, as Mini has its own page. The MINI is based on the original Mini, but nothing else. --IIIraute (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the sources in the article, and also at Mini's own website, which emphasises the continuity of the Mini marque, and its Britishness: [1] and [2]. I also suggest you ask yourself why Mini concept cars feature things like Union Jack roofs and other British symbols, and why BMW had based the design team for the marque, and the principal manufacturing facilities, in the UK.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you try to understand the meaning of marketing. Please show me one single reference where MINI (BMW) refers to itself as Mini. The logo isn't the same, is it?. To name this article Mini is simply wrong and therefore should be changed to MINI.--IIIraute (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The caps issue I have sympathy with, but this is a Wikipedia policy. I have found it similarly frustrating on articles such as Qinetiq. Logos change over time, the current Mini logo is however very similar to the Mini logo used by Rover Group pre BMW ownership and is clearly an evolution of it. Please also note that a replacement for the "original" two-door hatch was planned prior to the BMW acquisition, and would have happened without it. BMW patently did not invent the Mini marque.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No. that shouldn't be a problem at all; see: BASF, BMW, SAP, E.ON, MAN SE, etc. The name is MINI and therefore needs to be changed.--IIIraute (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that those are both legal names and marketing names, whereas the upper case MINI is purely a marketing conceit.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, MINI is registered as an own trademark.--IIIraute (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A trademark is a marketing concept. It is notable that when the media speak of the marque, they generally do not capitalise it, e.g. [3], [4], [5].Rangoon11 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. regarding your other argument, please see: Trabant & Trabant nT [6] --IIIraute (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the media says. MINI is a registered trademark in its own right; there is nothing really to discuss.--IIIraute (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

From a legal point of view MINI is clearly a German brand. The MINI name and logo are proprietary marks of BMW AG [7] [8]. Do you think because BMW (UK) Limited is a company registered in the UK, does make BMW (UK) british - BMW (UK) is fully owned by the BMW AG and so is MINI.

...........MINI is not Mini........ they are two separate brands!

--IIIraute (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No they are just different ways of capitalising the same thing. I take it that you think that Gauloises, Grolsch and Guinness are all now British brands due to being owned by UK-based companies? Rangoon11 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, the difference is, that the brands you mention above stayed the same product, only that now they are owned by UK-based companies. The MINI was developed completely by BMW. Don't get me wrong, I'am not trying to push some POV here - I don't really care if MINI is a German or British brand, however I do care about the fact that the MINI is a different product as the Mini. The MINI is based on the original Mini, inspired by it's design and uses the name for marketing reasons, however almost everything about the MINI is different from the Mini. A new owner, new factories, design-teams, technology, trademark, logo, etc. - just about everything. From 1991-2002, Stephenson penned the new Mini One R50 and Mini Cooper leading the team which developed the E50 car in Munich. At present, German designer Marcus Syring is the Head of Exterior Design at Mini UK[9]. In 1994 BMW moved all Research and Technology for the MINI to Munich[10]. All MINI vehicle technology is and was developed in Munich. All designwork is done in Newbury Park, LA and in Munich. BMW CAR IT is based in Munich. If you go on the BMW Group website[11] → Research & Development → Network → Innovation network, you'll find a big map. Have a closer look at the different development sites.... none of them is based in the UK. None of the executives in charge of the MINI is British. The MINI is a German car, decoratively wrapped in a Union Jack.--IIIraute (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The marque is clearly of British origin, just like Chevrolet is an American marque even when models are designed in South Korea and manufactured in China or elesewhere. Even were General Motors to be acquired by a Chinese company, and then the marketing name changed to CHEVROLET, it would still remain an American marque. Sources in this article state that some design work on the Mini took place in the UK and that Mini is a British marque. I have never read, anywhere, Mini described as a German marque.

Describing a specific model as 'German' seems highly subjective and dubious. Individual car models are now often designed by teams based in multiple countries, and then manufactured in multiple countries. BMW is a multinational company. It would be hard to describe the Ford Focus as an American car, even though Ford is absolutely an American marque. What is clear is that by far the largest manufacturing base for Mini is in the UK, the marque is British, and some design work takes place here.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not even disagree with some of your points - and I do not mind the brand to be a "British" brand; however the (new) MINI is a complete product of BMW - with all strings attached to Munich.... and yes, most of its manufacturing is done in the UK, but only under full guidance and control of BMW headquarters, Munich. My point is that apart from the "styled" name of the brand and some influence on the design, a complete new car has been developed that has absolutely nothing in common with the Mini. The car is a BMW with the MINI brand attached to it. Why call it marque anyway... where does this come from? Wasn't it a marque before? The article should be named MINI (BMW Group) or Mini (BMW Group). The MINI is not a continuation of the Mini (car) but only the brand. The MINI is a new version, a remake of the Mini. It is a marque of the BMW Group as well as the name of the model. On the German WP there is an article about the Mini and one about the Mini (BMW Group), with → predecessor model: none. --IIIraute (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all a little pointless. Mini or MINI is the same "brand" or "marque" that has had several owners over its lifetime - BMW have obviously developed and nurtured it but it relies on the brand heritage and value to sell its new cars! The capitalisation debate is a red-herring; if you look at many varieties of pre-BMW Mini's you will see capital letters being used on the badge. Let's keep with Mini as being appropriate for an encyclopaedia. If Smart can cope with a capital letter, then I can't see why Mini can't cope with small letters.

If Illraute looks at the proposals below, note the desire to clarify the "brand name"/"marque" from the actual cars produced. I think this will help clarify the differences between the two, and hopefully avid these kinds of spats in the future. Warren (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If BMW is only a "new owner" and the MINI not different from the Mini, why is there a separate article? BMW have not just nurtured it, they developed a complete new car. The BMW Group is 'the world's leading provider of premium products and premium services for individual mobility.' So what did happen to the Rover Group. I guess their Mini didn't really make it. The Rover Group Mini would definitely not have fitted BMW's portfolio.--IIIraute (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Warren makes a good point that renaming this article simply "Mini" would be a big step forward. Mini is a car marque with a long history under multiple owners and it is only right that Wikipedia has an article which explains the marque's story. It should be noted that going forward each specific model will have its own article, which will also be able to refer to the BMW connection. This article already seems to extensively discuss BMW's role however, I really can't see how it could be argued that this article in any way understates the BMW connection.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There should be an own MINNI (BMW Group) article. Previous models have been a british product. The MINI is not. Apart from the original British "marque" that has gone through a transformation from a sardine-can with wheels into a premium car, and the manufacturing that could as well be done in Poland, there is nothing that doesn't shout BMW. That's why people buy this car - before BMW, the marque was dead - just like all the other British marques.--IIIraute (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we will have to agree to disagree then. I would perhaps support the creation of an additional Mini (BMW) article (although I would be unlikely to support that actual title) if there was a Mini entity which was actually a separate company with its employees etc (as with MG Motor) but that is not the case. Mini does not even appear to be a clearly defined division within BMW, rather its activities are completely integrated with those of the BMW passenger cars activities. Your comments about the marque having been dead pre-BMW are factually incorrect. Your other comment is irrelevant but I will respond - pre BMW the UK still had a British-owned volume car manufactuer. Today it does not and the Rover marque is no longer in production. BMW's involvement in the UK car industry has therefore been of mixed value to say the least. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, "Mini does not even appear to be a clearly defined division within BMW, rather its activities are completely integrated with those of the BMW passenger cars activities." ...you did bring it to the point. Mini, as it had existed, was more or less dissolved - the brand changed to MINI and BMW got their foot in the small car sector. Now they are manufacturing small BMW's called MINI..... and all other WPs agree: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. --IIIraute (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Those other language articles are all highly inferior to this one, in content, scope, accuracy and number of edits and editors. Mini = MINI. Capitalising the letters in marketing did not create a new marque. We are going round in circles here. Rangoon11 (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not inferior (examples:[28][29][30]). The whole world is not inferior. And we are not going round in circles here. Is it possible that there is some lobbying of British interests going on here.... because there is quite some POV pushing from British editors. The rest of the world seems to have a different perception of the marque, and obviously they did not get it from this WP article.--IIIraute (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, all highly inferior, with very few quality ciations. If you are now resorting to personal attacks then I think I will bow out.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Why waste others' time on a lengthy Talk page discussion if you are then just going to try to impose the change through edit-warring? Rangoon11 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Illraute. Those other articles in other language Wikipedias have not gone to the German Wikipedia to find about Minis have they? Does this suggest they do not see the BMW link to be important? Is it that they just recognize it to be a British car? Eddaido (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

...what...????--IIIraute (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing information

In the sections sales, internal designations, award and criticism only cover those after ownership was transferred to BMW. Obvious and unfortunate omission.---North wiki (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this article still needs quite a lot of work. Another issue is that there should really be stand alone articles for each of the Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2001-2006) and the Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2006-).Rangoon11 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Mini (marque)" as article name

I believe that it is somewhat confusing to label this page as "Mini (marque)" given that Mini was also a marque from 1969 to 1982. The page name "Mini (marque)" does not accurately differentiate the contents of this page from that of the Mini page. GTHO (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't fully understand your comment but I do agree that the current naming of this article and the article currently named Mini is imperfect. My own preference would be for either:

1. 'Mini' to become a disambiguation page, with this article retaining its current name and the article currently named 'Mini' renamed. Such a disambiguation page would give the opportunity for a proper description of the contents of the article currently named 'Mini', which is somewhat complicated.

I don't believe that the use of the word Mini is now overwhlemingly associated with the original two-door model rather than the marque. Yes the original model is extremely famous, far more so than most individual cars, but the marque is now also very well known and for younger readers probably the primary association of the word.

2. This article to take the 'Mini' name, again with the the article currently named 'Mini' renamed. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is some confusion between Mini the "brand"/"marque", and the various Mini cars. I would support the need for one article to summarise the complete Mini brand/marque story (and the various owners over time), and then proper articles for each model past and present (as already started for the recent Mini Countryman).There is probably no need for a disambiguation page if this route was taken. Warren (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

These mini articles are somehow messed now, it was better with own pages for original Mini ja own article for BMW Mini, this page is also wrong as the Mini margue of its own started in 1969 not in the 1959 as the article infobox claims, original Mini page would need a timeline to explain the name changes during the years, because it was made as car model by Austin and Morris, it was not just a Mini. -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it back to the previous title, which was the result of a move discussion. "Marque" does not disambiguate the two models any more than "car" would. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

- Reverted to longstanding title. Have you actually read the article? It addresses the marque (and not any specific model) both pre and post the BMW acquisition. I am personally strongly opposed to such a misleading title. The bracketed "marque" is to disambiguate from the specific model which is often called simply "Mini". In my view the best approach would be to title this article simply "Mini", and change the title of the article currently using that name. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11 makes a good point which may help avoid these unhelpful article title arguments. I would suggest that there is one Mini article which is this "marque" article. Then the current Mini article could become the "Mini (original)" article (or what ever is the right name for the actual Mini car. The newer Mini models are now on there own specific articles so I think this is a good time to correct this long standing error! Warren (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would support the idea that the "Mini (marque)" article is retitled "Mini" and that the current "Mini" article should become the "Mini (original)" article. Dormskirk (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

This used to be the MINI article (about the "new" BMW MINI - not the original Mini) - the content of this article was gradually changed to an article about the Mini marque . Now there are basically two identical Mini articles: Mini and Mini (marque). The goal seems to be to get rid of one of them → so the "new MINI (BMW)" becomes part of one single "original" Mini article with no own right to exist. The article has undergone continuous POV pushing and a dominating undoing of other editors work.--IIIraute (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The user Rangoon11 continues to edit war the content of this article →‎WP:3RR[31], removing sources [32], pushing his/her POV. This is already the second time this month. I have sent a warning to the users talk page which the user has removed. Rangoon11 ignores the content of 17 other WPs [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], calling them "inferior". Although some of the other language WPs are smaller, their editors still went through the effort to create a separate article for MINI (BMW), and they were obviously not influenced by this WP article. This consensus of 17 other WPs seems to represent the global perception of the marque. With 17 languages, the other WP articles do represent several billion potential readers. Patronizing the work of literally hundreds of editors of other language WPs and to discredit their work, is disrespectful and only seems to serve the purpose of POV pushing (see: talk above↑). --IIIraute (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No you are the one POV-pushing, and trying to impose changes to the stable version of this article through edit warring. The other language WP Mini articles are all greatly inferior to this one. Fact. I'm also rather surprised that someone who only yesterday was making personal attacks on this Talk page should now be accusing others of disrespect. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And you may be surprised to know that 60% of all Wikipedia readers in fact view the English-language Wikipedia: [50], more than view every other language version combined. Which I guess might be why you, a German, are here POV-pushing on the English language site. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11 is also the same user who dissolved MINI(BMW) and moved it to Mini (marque) see:[51]. --IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has in fact been at that title, stable, for a year and 2 months. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No it has NOT been stable. It had been stable until Rangoon11 started manipulating it. Also the Mini (marque) article (that originally supported the points I am making, and resembled the other 17 WP articles) has undergone more and more POV pushing since the article was started: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]....so far, everything is fine - for several years... to this point the article was still about the new Mini (BMW) only...... and then the pushing started: on the 20. November 2010 Rangoon11 started with his/her edits to this article → first edit: + Automotive industry in the United Kingdom[59]. From this point the article gradually changes towards personal (british) POV pushing → complete rewriting of the lead[60].... and on the 31. January 2011 the whole Mini (original) content/article was moved in[61]. Now the original article that had existed for many years had been completely rewritten..... the → ‎Original Mini (1959-2000): Internal link added[62], another little detail added[63][64]. Transformation complete.--IIIraute (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

...and then Rangoon11 asks user Warren Whyte for help [65] with whom he/she has been collaborating for a while...... with the result that a reference from The Guardian[66], is getting replaced with a reference from autocar[67]....Honi soit qui mal y pense.--IIIraute (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice link, but there was nothing "dishonourable" about my post on Warren's page, and I note that you have have just attempted to engage another editor in a similar way on their Talk page: [68].

Articles develop and improve over time. You only view this as manipulation because you (a) completely lack good faith, and (b) don't like the way in which the article has changed, which doesn't accord with your POV. It is also the case that many other editors have worked on this article over the past 14 months. The article was stable until your recent POV-pushing. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the Guardian source was low value, a blog piece from their comment section. An article from a long-established car magazine is far superior.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

NO, I have not. I did ask the editor to contribute to the talk-page[69], while you animated the other editor to engage with the edits of the article[70]

So that is for you to decide - what and what is not suitable for this article? As the article-history shows, you are constantly removing other editors work, and you have been involved in another edit-war just some days ago. Jonathan Glancey is the Guardian's architecture and design correspondent[71]. You animated another editor to undo my contribution again (edit warring). You did not improve the article, but transformed it into one that already exists → Mini. --IIIraute (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a couple of disclaimers. In the past I have found Illraute generally rude and hard to work with, and I have a fairly good history of collaborating with Rangoon11. My gut reaction was therefore obvious, but a moment of reflection reminds me that I much prefer the previous state of affairs - with Mini (BMW) covering the new hatchback model and clearly separating what are two completely unrelated vehicle. I prefer the engineer's to the marketer's viewpoint. While the original Mini was indeed briefly sold under its own brand, creating some sort of convoluted history of the Mini "marque" beginning in 1969 (while incorporating the 1959-1969 history) and thus creating a direct link to the New Mini strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Another disclaimer: I don't really care enough to go through past edits or sources to support my ideas - I feel that there are plenty of sources to support mine or the other side's viewpoint, and the only way to decide these kinds of matters is to take a vote or some such.

As a side note, I just returned from a two-day road trip on the mountainous and curvy roads of Vermont in a rented Mini Cooper, where I had a most excellent time (excepting the highly annoying and counterintuitive turn signal and wiper stalks). I don't have anything against the new Mini as a car, but there are limits to how much I think WP should be tools of BMW/Mini's marketing arm. Thank you both for your efforts, remember that these are just my viewpoints, and I think a vote is the only way to go - no censures, no blocks, no recriminations. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having me... I also prefer the engineer's to the marketer's viewpoint - but how do you want to separate that, when the car is reduced to the Mini marque? There used to be an article from the engineers viewpoint - but that article was slowly dissolved and transformed into what it is now. With all due respect... Isn't that the point I am trying to make here↑? When the car is reduced to the brand - that's why & when one has to draw on someting stupid like Mini - MINI to show the differences!--IIIraute (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This still seems to be very confused. The ill-tempered debate seems to be flip-flopping between specific cars and the "brand". The actual specific cars are dealt with in different articles so what's the argument about? See Mini Hatch and Mini Countryman for example, which developed last year as this article was mixing up various models with company and marque history, so this article showing its long and varied travels as a brand or marque is quite appropriate with the models of cars being upgraded to specific articles. I think that the proposals to rename the pages elsewhere on this talk page are quite pragmatic but for some reason that has been bypassed and time is being wasted on warring.

Any suggestions of me being dragged into this debate is disingenuous to say the least. I have edited and contributed to this article over some time and want to see it to grow into a good NPOV article that does the subject justice. And I have no axe to grind by being neither a owner or driver of the original Mini or the C21 Mini. Imagine how good the article could be if editors collaborated with the article's content rather than fight over semantics and waste time on talk page research.

Before a vote goes ahead, there needs to be some agreement on what the vote will establish, and I'm not sure that some editors are clear what they really want from this article. Is it a company/brand/marque page or is it about BMW era Mini? Maybe that's what a vote needs to ask. If so it would be a bit strange as any other automotive article I've worked on has a single brand or marque page to cover its entire history. Warren (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This article has had a somewhat convoluted history due to its having begun as specifically about a single model, the Mini Hatch (2001 to 2006), which now (rightly) has its own article. At the time of that vehicle's launch it was common for the media to describe it as the "BMW Mini". As the Mini range has expanded this has become rather less common though.

Mini is a marque and clearly was not invented by BMW. The Mini marque first appeared in 1969. Even the concept of a new two-door hatch to replace the replace the classic shape two-door hatch model was not a BMW idea, Rover Group had been working on a project for a replacement independently prior to the take over. Capitalising the marketing name clearly did not create a new marque, and the official Mini websites make quite clear that the marques history did not begin in 2001 ([72]).

There is no Mini "company", neither under BMW ownership nor under the prior owners of the marque. Neither is there even a Mini "division" within BMW which operates all of the Mini-related factories, R&D facilities etc, nor was there such a division under prior owners.

In my view a BMW Mini article would therefore be highly artificial. At present I feel that the best approach is (1) articles for each specific Mini model (these could be deemed "engineers' articles" if you like), (2) a Mini marque article (which I feel should in fact be renamed to simply "Mini"), and (3) the general BMW articles on factories, facilities, finances etc, which can deal with the operational aspects of Mini R&D, employees and production within the context of BMW AG.

The Mini marque is more than notable enough to have its own article. If this article did not exist there could be no valid argument against its creation under WP policy. How this article began is now irrelevant, the article is what it is and has developed over time through the combined efforts of numerous editors over a lengthy period.

For me the question is therefore, should an additional article now be created which simply addresses the Mini marque under BMW ownership. For the reasons I have given above, at present I feel that this is unnecesssary. Were a Mini "division" or "subsidiary" to be created by BMW then my view on this would be different however. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No additional article needs to be created, as the article already exists. We just have to get rid of your manipulative editing on the original "Mini (BMW)" article (as shown above). There already is, and always has been a Mini article.--IIIraute (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not a marque article but a model article. No current article of the type which you are advocating exists. If you are going to persist in repeated personal attacks then it is unlikely any progress will be made. I note that you have ignored essentially every point which I have just made in the post directly above. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this whole issue: How is it possible that for so many years there were two separate articles on this WP (a Mini & Mini(BMW)) article, that were fully compatible with all of the other language WPs (French, German, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Chinese and 12 other languages) until on the 20. November 2010 one single editor (Rangoon11) decided that he wanted it to be different and started with his manipulating edits. Since then (and later with the help of user Warren Whyte) the article has undergone a complete transformation, continuous POV pushing and a dominating undoing of other editors work. So, how is it possible that one editor (later two), have the power to work against a consensus that exists among the editors of 18 different language WPs? I do not find this acceptable. --IIIraute (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And I find your repeated personal attacks, and failure to engage in an actual discussion by ignoring all points made in rebuttal, unacceptable.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I favor having Mini be the main article, summarizing all variants over the years 1959-2012+ and not being weighted in favor of any one version or company. So the infobox should not lead with the BMW version or logo, or {{Infobox brand}}. There should be a custom infobox that provides an overview of, and easy navigation between, the the main articles for the classic Mini, BMW Mini, and the sub-variants. The navbox {{Mini cars}} should be expanded to include the BMW Minis too. In other words, both the infobox and navbox should have the same information, one for the lead and one for the bottom of the article. The bottom one has the extra feature of the timeline, of course. Category:"Part of a series on" templates provides numerous good examples of what this lead infobox would look like. I picked {{History of Mumbai}} as one example. This new infobox, and the lead paragraph, should make Mini be the main navigation point for each sub-article, including one on the new Mini. An like {{Infobox brand}} may be used in the sub-sections that cover BMW Minis, classic Minis, etc.

Mini (BMW) is probably the best title, or else BMW Mini or, perhaps, New Mini. Mini (marque) is a poor title for any ariticle, because "marque" is just a precious motor industry term that means "brand", and it doesn't disambiguate anything. The 1959-2000 version page needs a new name too. As far as I can tell, either Classic Mini or Mini classic (delete redirect to Nintendo Mini Classics, add hatnote) satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I've read four or five books on Minis and a fair number of news and magazine articles, and, at least in the US, that's what everyone calls them. Unless the terminology is radically different in UK English.

This would serve the reader who knows little or nothing about Minis and needs an overview before diving into the more detailed pages. The reader who already has a general idea about what the different Minis care can quickly navigate to whichever sub-page they need to find, by either clicking on the links in the lead or in the infobox.

MrChoppers is correct that this suits BMW MINI marketing very well. However, we should not violate WP:COMMONNAME or the principle of obeying sources and the common view of the general public just to spite the marketers. For better or for worse, as a social and cultural entity, not just as a BMW brand, the old and new Minis are linked in the public's mind and most sources approach the topic of the Mini by summarizing both the old and the new, before then diving deeper into each. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you right you are proposing that the article currently named 'Mini' be renamed something like 'Mini classic', and focused primarily on the original two-door hatch. I can fully support that. This article is then able to take the 'Mini' name however, and provide the overall introduction to the marque which you suggest - the content is already in this article, it is not found elsewhere in WP. I understand that you are then proposing an additional, new article specifically on Mini post-2001, titled something like 'Mini (BMW)'. For the reasons I have given above I feel that this is presently an unnecessary and artifical article which would overlap with the article then titled 'Mini', with the separate articles which now exist on each Mini model, and with pages such as BMW AG. There is no Mini division or subsidiary within BMW which can form the basis of such an article.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the Mini navbox does include post-2001 models, although it may require updating to add models launched over the last 12 months. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is organized by subject, and spawns articles following WP:Summary style. What does Wikipedia care how BMW organizes itself? The same issue came up in 2011 when Kawasaki Heavy Industries spun off the robotics from Kawasaki Heavy Industries Consumer Products and Machinery Company and created Kawasaki Heavy Industries Motorcycle & Engine. Wikipedia is supposed to move all our articles around every time a company redraws their org chart? No. We created Kawasaki motorcycles to cover what was, for Wikipedia, the main subject. There happen to be articles on some of Kawasaki's various corporate parts, but that's a separate issue. And then of course we have BMW Motorrad, which, like MINI, is merely one of BMW Group's brands, not a <whatever>. As far as I can tell from BMWs corporate reports, and in spite of the claim that they're subsidiaries, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Husqvarna, and BMW itself, are also mere BMW Group brands. So what? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually both Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited and Husqvarna Motorcycles S.r.l. are subsidiaries. And we do not have an article on BMW passenger cars, at least an all-encompassing one which includes the BMW marque, BMW brand passenger cars, factories used to produce BMW passenger cars etc.

At present we do have an article on the Mini marque - which at least some editors above seem to accept we should retain. Wikipedia needs to follow reliable sources and no reliable sources are able to address a Mini company or division, because such a thing does not exist. A Wikipedia article on that topic would therefore be pure synthesis.

This is leaving aside the issue of overlap. If we have a Mini marque article, plus articles on each specific Mini model (the 'engineers' articles'), plus the Mini concept cars article, plus the BMW AG articles which deal with operational, financial etc aspects, then a Mini (BMW) article would generate lots of overlap and add very little. The very name 'Mini (BMW)' is completely artificial, it is not a name which even appears in the Mini official websites. The common name is 'Mini', and the 'main subject' is cars which have the Mini marque.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So what if the article name is "artificial"? Wikipedia article titles are sometimes "artificial" as you call it. We have policy on that. At BMW Group.com it says "THE BRANDS OF THE BMW GROUP. BMW, MINI and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars." Again here it says the brands are BMW, MINI, and Rolls. Are we going to delete BMW Motorrad and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars because they're "brands"? No. See WP:SNOW. So who cares about Husqvarna either way? There is no basis for having or not having articles with reference to what is a brand or a subsidiary or a division. Wikipedia doesn't make articles that way so why are we still wasting time discussing it?

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Article titles, and the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style. Do you have any arguments to make based on policy or guidelines? The brand/subsidiary/division thing is a red herring, of no relevance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are making. 'Mini' is the brand, not 'Mini (BMW)'. And the common and proper name of the brand is 'Mini'. 'Mini (BMW)' is neither a brand, a subsidiary, a division or anything which merits a standalone article. The Mini marque is highly notable however. Is anyone here seriously arguing that the Mini marque is not a notable subject for a Wikipedia article? I am arguing for the marque article being called simply 'Mini'. Neither the common or proper name of the subject is 'Mini (BMW)'. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NCDAB for my point. "Mercury (element)" isn't really the "common and proper name" of the element mercury. Casablanca (film) isn't the "common and proper name" for the Bogart film either. It's just that we put something in parentheses after the word as an aid in disambiguation. If we decide that Mini is the main article for the entire range, from 1958 to present, then Mini (something) has to be the name of the article about the new Mini. The thing in parentheses is there to help the reader know what the article is about, that's all. It doesn't have to map directly to anything "official". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, if the marque article were to be titled simply 'Mini', and a separate additional article were to be created for Mini post-2001, then a disambiguation would be needed and that would be a reasonable one. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2007 to present): "The engineering was done in the United Kingdom by BMW Group UK Engineering" ...actually, where is this imaginary "BMW Group UK Engineering" facility? because I am not sure that it really exists[73]. In 1994 BMW moved all Research and Technology for the MINI to Munich[74]. See: BMW Group[75] → Research & Development → Network → Innovation network - there is a big map with all the different development sites.... none of them is based in the UK: BMW Innovation network: BMW Group Research and Innovation Center, Munich; BMW Car IT, Munich[76]; BMW Group Research and Technology, Munich; Innovation and Technology Center, Landshut Plant, Germany; BMW Motoren GmbH Steyr; BMW Group Designworks, Munich & Newbury Park; BMW Group Engineering and Emission Test Center; BMW Group Technology Office Palo Alto, BMW Group Engineering USA; BMW Group Engineering, Japan..... yep, zero in the UK. All the research and innovation, technology, engineering and IT has been done by BMW in Germany.

There is nothing about this car that is done in the UK - apart from most of the assembly..... however, the Countryman, of course, will be assembled outside the UK, in Austria. Quite a phony article, isn't it?--IIIraute (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why we need marque page at all? just make two pages one for old and one fore new Mini (and disambiguation to the top of page) , if we put all to same page it will be very long, so better to have separate pages for both. I think we (wikipedia) dont need to follow or support ,manufacturers idea of that new one being a real Mini? -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the marque is a highly notable topic for a WP article. The article already exists - it is this article, and it is not particularly long.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with the other editors. The new MINI can not be separated from BMW. Apart from that; if there is a Mini (marque) article - that's how the lead should begin: [77][78] The "original" marque is dead ... because, MINI (present - new logo, new everything), is BMW only - nothing else. The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation.

Oh look - an original Mini brochure from 2000 showing a very similar badge to new Mini... not quite the reinvention then for the 2001 Mini as suggested above. Great collection of online Mini brochures! Warren (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of very demanding competition on the car market ...so why not be frank on this one: ...when people do spend an avarage of 20-35.000 USD (basic) on a small car, they do expect a BMW; because after all - there is a reason why the old Mini didn't make it. The differences between old and new are so extensive and fundamental, and the marque was modified to such a degree, that one can simply not speak of the same product (and marque) anymore. --IIIraute (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which you keep on repeating again and again (whilst completely ignoring all points made in rebuttal). However a great number of reliable sources, including the official Mini website, do state a shared history in the marque. Which is no surprise, since one only has to look at a new Mini to see the lineage. The Mini marque is highly notable for a Wikipedia article. Some kind of artifical Mini (2001) article, which is designed purely to show that the Mini marque was in fact created by BMW in 2001, is pure original research, and factually incorrect. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all car models move upmarket as they age. Compare the original Honda Civic with the modern behemoth. It's a well-documented marketing strategy. Aside from that, one reason for covering old and new in an umbrella article is to discuss the range of opinions as to whether the new version is "true" to the old, how they are similar, how they differ, and why. Consider flammable and non-flammable. Opposites, yet same article. Why? Because the reader must think about one to understand the other. And then we have the fact that so many -- most in fact -- sources today do cover both together, because together they tell a story. And we are slaves to our sources, not our own opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

BMW trade significantly on the last 50 year's heritge of the name, so the points made by Illurate above are wrong. There were even official Mini special editions launched in 2009 (see Evo article) to mark the event of the "company's" heritage. And worth noting that is some markets including the UK, the original Mini was still on sale in 2000 (by BMW, who owned it since 1994) so there was no significant break in Mini sales to suggest it wasn't a continuation, unlike say Maybach which indeed had quite a (failed) revival. There are some pertinent and specific article comments made above and these should be considered or fixed in the relevant article but they only muddy the discussion here.

Despite the argument, It looks like there is support for Mini to be the main article for the history and background (an umbrella article as Dennis suggests) to Mini and that all specific models have their own specific articles - and this should even keep Illurate happy as by default all BMW era models will have their own page.

Perhaps Illurate doesn't know that the Mini name had quite a success during the 1990s as a very British retro icon in the UK and several international markets, and that this was one of the reasons why BMW invested so much in the new generation Mini (and some concepts prior to the 2001 launch). The fact it took so long is probably because of all the other issues surrounding Range Rover, MG and Rover which were all owned by BMW at this time. Warren (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a vague attempt at a summary which I hope should be acceptable to all:

• Mini is a cursory umbrella history, from Issigonis until the current day, with hatnotes to the various articles.
  
• Mini (classic) covers the 1959-2000 model - incorporating the original Mini Clubman content. The parenthesis also makes clear that this is not the official name.
  
• The various new Minis have their own articles, with Clubman also having a hatnote link to the original Clubman section within Mini (classic).
  

When it comes to this kind of organizing, our main goal is after all to allow users to find the relevant page with a minimum of effort, with care taken not to be misleading or incorrect. It is also important to arrange things logically and so that corporate restructurings or namechanges won't necessitate moving around countless article names and wikilinks. Counter-proposals are welcome.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Also interesting to see that the original Mini was actually briefly called "Mini Classic", as seen in the brochure linked above by Warren.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Will someone please remove one of the big lies about the new Mini that is spread in this article: Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2007 to present): "The engineering was done in the United Kingdom by BMW Group UK Engineering" ...actually, where is this imaginary "BMW Group UK Engineering" facility? because I am not sure that it really exists[79]. In 1994 BMW moved all Research and Technology for the MINI to Munich[80]. See: BMW Group[81] → Research & Development → Network → Innovation network - there is a big map with all the different development sites.... none of them is based in the UK: BMW Innovation network: BMW Group Research and Innovation Center, Munich; BMW Car IT, Munich[82]; BMW Group Research and Technology, Munich; Innovation and Technology Center, Landshut Plant, Germany; BMW Motoren GmbH Steyr; BMW Group Designworks, Munich & Newbury Park; BMW Group Engineering and Emission Test Center; BMW Group Technology Office Palo Alto, BMW Group Engineering USA; BMW Group Engineering, Japan..... yep, zero in the UK. All the research and innovation, technology, engineering and IT has been done by BMW in Germany. Thank you.--IIIraute (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The brochure shows very clearly the difference between the original and the BMW Mini[83], so what upmarket moving as they age we are talking about. 2000 and 2001? It is very evident that BMW developed a complete new car.--IIIraute (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we have reliable third-party sources which state that the Mini Hatch was at least partly designed in the UK. Here are some more: [84] and [85]. Do you have any which state that the Mini Hatch was not designed in the UK? Rolls Royces are also partly designed in the UK too, so perhaps the map is wrong. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do[[86]]--IIIraute (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies I note that you were referring specifically to the 2007 Hatch. It is true that we don't currently have a cite stating that it was designed in the UK, and I am happy to lose that sentence in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A further point (this is the last) - the Mini USA website does actually state that Mini's 'were developed in the UK by the BMW Group's Development Division: [87] Rangoon11 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Then the MINI USA website is wrong, as neither a "BMW Group UK Engineering Division" nor a "BMW Group UK Development Division" does exist. The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation. "British Aerospace had planned to phase out the car by 1996", said a spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter.[88]. Quoting the New York Times: "Last Classic Mini Closes an Automotive Era" - "The Mini, the car that wowed the Beatles and symbolized the Swinging Sixties, entered automotive history today when the last of its 41-year pedigree, No. 5,387,862, rolled off the production line." - "In 1994, BMW bought Rover from British Aerospace, which was reluctant to make the investment to make the Mini comply with increasingly stringent European Union standards for safety and emissions. British Aerospace had planned to phase out the car by 1996 said a spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter. - BMW made a decision to put money in to keep it legal for another three or four years until they could build a new small car that they wanted to call the Mini, Mr. Poynter said." In 1994 BMW took control of the Rover Group, which included the Mini. By March 2000, Rover was still suffering massive losses, and BMW decided to dispose of most of the companies. The sell-off was completed in May that year. MG and Rover went to Phoenix, and Land Rover was sold to Ford Motor Company. BMW retained the rights for the Mini name by legal status, granting Rover temporary rights to the brand and allowing it to manufacture and sell the run-out model of the old Mini (the Mini Classic). The last Mini was built on 4 October 2000 and presented to the British Motor Industry Heritage Trust in December of that year. After the last of the Mini production had been sold, the 'Mini' name reverted to BMW ownership and was changed to MINI. The new BMW MINI is technically unrelated to the old car and none of its development is done in the UK. So let's have the marque article, that is titled simply "Mini", and a separate additional article for the Mini post-2001 (Mini BMW).... what's the problem?--IIIraute (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources stating that the 2001 Hatch was designed in the UK, and none which contradict this. And Mini = MINI, they are the same thing. MINI is not an acronym for anything. MINI is just a marketing conceit, just like BAE SYSTEMS is for BAE Systems or QinetiQ is for Qinetiq, they are one and the same. You actually acknowledge this when you say "the 'Mini' name reverted to BMW ownership". Yes it did, because it was not invented by BMW.

I said: The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation. The BMW MINI is a new product.--IIIraute (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's good that we appear to have finally agreed on the continuation of an article focused on the Mini marque. I repeat again the points which I made before though. If we have a Mini marque article (likely titled "Mini"), a model article for the 1959 to 2000 two-door hatch (likely titled "Mini (classic)"), articles for other Mini models, both post-2001 (such as the Hatch and Countryman) and pre (such as the Moke), an article on Mini concept cars, plus the BMW AG articles which deal with post 2001 operational aspects such as finances, what is left to go in this additional and artificial article?

I repeat again that there is no Mini company, subsidiary or division and never has been. In my view this is highly relevant as it means that the article would be a work of synthesis, essentially on products produced under the Mini marque since 2001, which will be wholly duplicated elsewhere. And in order for that separate, artificial, article to provide proper context, it would also need to repeat pre-2001 history in order to explain how the post 2001 models actually came about. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"In 1994, BMW bought Rover from British Aerospace, which was reluctant to make the investment to make the Mini comply with increasingly stringent European Union standards for safety and emissions. British Aerospace had planned to phase out the car by 1996 said a spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter. - BMW made a decision to put money in to keep it legal for another three or four years until they could build a new small car that they wanted to call the Mini, Mr. Poynter said."--IIIraute (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. It is not in dispute that BMW will have had ultimate management control after its takeover of Rover, and neither is it relevant. Nor does it disprove that development work on a replacement Mini took place prior to the BMW takeover, nor that the 2001 Hatch was designed in the UK. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article, quoting spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter, makes clear that the old Mini had no future, and that the general perception is that the car ceased to exist[89],[90]. The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation: "Workers take a last look at the last British Mini to roll of the production line..."[91], "The Mini... entered automotive history when the last of its 41-year pedigree -- No. 5,387,862 -- rolled off the production line Wednesday."[92], "A grand farewell to a British icon"[93]. The BMW MINI is a new product.

Ok, now that we have also established that there is no UK "BMW Group Engineering Division" nor a "BMW Group UK Development Division" and all technology was developed by BMW, Munich, we are down to the design: Frank Stephenson (BMW Group Designworks) is credited for the design of the Hatch. 1991-2002, Stephenson penned the new Mini One R50 and Mini Cooper leading the team which developed the E50 car in Munich (parallel development in England by the team at Rover has been dropped in 1995)[94].--IIIraute (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: And please do not use the "Daily Telegraph" as a reference anymore - too much jingoism[95], and not more trustworthy than "FOX News"[96],[97],[98].--IIIraute (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not too happy myself to include the BMW Mini as a seamless continuation in an article covering the Mini from 1959 on, but I have to admit that it makes a lot of sense and helps clearing things up for the uninvited. Instead of you two (Illraute and Rangoon, that is) disputing various details and points of contention, how about you both put forth what you think a reasonable division of the entirety of the Mini history, such as my proposal above? Then we could invite the rest of the Automotive Project editors and have them vote on three choices (or perhaps synthesize further first)? Then the various details about what was developed where can be hammered out within an agreed upon framework, which should make everything easier.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to support for Mr Chopper's very pragmatic and clear proposal. Warren (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can support the proposal which Mr Choppers made above for an arrangement as follows:

- "Mini" - an umbrella marque history, from Issigonis until the current day, with links to the various other Mini articles (this would essentially be the current Mini (marque) article)

- "Mini (classic)" - a model article on the 1959-2000 two-door hatch (incorporating the original Mini Clubman content, although that could in time also have a standalone article, it is sufficiently notable) (this would essentially be the current "Mini" article)

- Each Mini model to have its own article (with Clubman (2008 to present) having a hatnote link to the original Clubman section within Mini (classic))

- The current Mini concept cars article to continue as is

If we can reach a clear and fairly quick consensus on this on this Talk page then I think that would be greatly preferable to taking it to the project, which will inevitably be time-consuming, and involve yet another re-tread of the discussion above (the discussion has already taken up a considerable amount of time, it cannot be argued that there has been an unwillingness to explore the issues in detail). However if no consensus can be established on this talk page then I support taking it to the project.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need a Mini marque article? Why not have a Mini (car) article, similar to the Rolls-Royce (car), with the following subsections:

Mini British Motor Corporation (1959–1968)

Mini British Leyland (1968–1986)

Mini Rover Group (1986–2000)

Mini BMW Group (2001-)

...or, the subsections:

Mini (Classic)

Mini (BMW) --IIIraute (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Support MrChopper's scheme. Mini (car) isn't necessary because, while there are other uses of the term mini at Mini (disambiguation), the car usage is the dominant one, so it doesn't need a disambiguator appended. Speaking of Mini (disambiguation), a section on the Innocenti Mini belongs in the umbrella article. It's yet another example that coverage of the subject of Minis isn't governed by which company is making them, or which country or countries are involved. Honda Super Cub is a good example of a vehicle with much in common with the Mini. Designed as cheap transport for the masses, dating to 1958, built in many countries around the world, made continuously for some 50 years in nearly the original form, and having numerous variant models, many of them quiet up to date, many quite retro. And having been made by more than one company, some illegal copies, some under license.

The editors who keep disagreeing over whether the new Mini isn't a "true" or "real" or whatever Mini are pushing a POV, and should take a step back. The same goes for the disupte over whether the new Mini is British enough. It is true that many experts criticize the faithfulness of BMW's cars to the originals, and complain about their Britshness. That's a worthy topic for the article, as outlined in Wikipedia:Describing points of view. It must be done objectively, with attribution to motoring experts, with no regard to the opinions of Wikipedia editors. The facts speak for themselves, and there is no justification to use Wikipedia to push readers into believing that the new Minis are (or are not) a proper continuation of the line. It's something people disagree about, and should be treated as such.

When you divide two articles on fault lines of disagreement, that is called a POV fork, and it's not allowed. Both POVs (continuity, discontinuity) must be in one article; that's the policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, MrChopper's scheme, with the Mini article in the style of the Honda Super Cub; why not. However, I cannot find any "...is a Japanese marque" or "Country: Japan" in the lead. I have given valid, well sourced evidence (see above) that will have to be part of the Mini article. The new MINI cars have a "W" country-code in their Vehicle Identification Number. The facts speak for themselves, indeed.--IIIraute (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)