Jump to content

Talk:Mini

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.137.234.217 (talk) at 14:23, 27 November 2005 (→‎Merger). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Top Speed

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

SteveBaker says: The merger was a good idea - but the article is now far too long. We need to separate out the modern MINI stuff. The modern and classic cars have very little in common and a single paragraph at the bottom of the classic Mini page would suffice to explain the passing of the baton to the new generation and a single paragraph at the top of a modern MINI page indicating past heritage would keep the two articles adequately cross-linked.

==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)

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)

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

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)

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 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.

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 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini&oldid=29380146"