Talk:Mini (BMW)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Clubman Criticism

I find it utterly ridiculous that there's no mention of the Clubman in the Criticism section. Lest we forget that The Times gave it 2 of 5 stars because: - The join in the rear doors mean the rear-view mirror is almost useless. - The single door to the back seats is on the wrong side for the UK market, so anyone sitting in the back seat has no choice but to get out into traffic rather than onto the pavement. - The boot space is the smallest in class.

Can you really not find a single bad review? Allow me: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, CAR magazine gave it a bit of a pasting when it first came out, but it still gets three stars and a "Good" rating in their "GBU" buyers guide. Apparently they couldn't move the rear door on RHD versions without expensive alterations to the fuel system. Mr Larrington (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that they couldn't move the suicide door to the other side. How difficult is it to route a fuel pipe through one side of the body than the other? More likely is, Clubman had not been conceived when MINI 2 was launched, and was later cobbled together in an ultra-short timeframe. (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Why does the Specifications list look like the Nissan 350z's? I am sure NISMO don't make a package for the Mini, right? (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

older comments

SteveBaker 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) In case anyone wonders why I chose to call this page 'BMW MINI' instead of 'New MINI' (although 'New MINI' redirects here) - it is because things that are 'New' don't stay new forever. There are already signs that people are using the term 'New MINI' to refer to the 2007 model - with the '01 through '06 models being called just 'MINI'. If that distinction sticks, then calling this page 'New MINI' would have been a very bad idea. Since we need to distinguish 'MINI' from 'Mini' and we don't want Wiki articles that differ only in CaPiTaLiSaTiOn - I decided to use the second most commonly used alternative name for the car: 'BMW MINI'.

FYI: At the time I split this article off from 'Mini', there were over 650 other pages referring to 'Mini' - about 150 of which were really talking about the BMW MINI. I fixed as many as I could - but in the case of perhaps 5 or 6 of those pages, it was not clear which car was being talked about - so I left them alone and posted a note to the talk page for each asking the authors to fix the link if they needed to. (Fixing 650 links in one session is *NOT* fun - but reading every single Wiki article that refers to the Mini was definitely an education in Mini trivia!)

External Links

There is a lot of back and forth addition and removal of links going on here. It's really counter-productive and must be annoying some people almost as much as it annoys me! I think the protagonists should post (on this Talk page) their points of view as to what consists a sensible link and what does not rather than having the 'discussion' in an edit war.

IMHO, we should link to the official MINI web site and to the top three or four fan sites ONLY. We cannot support links to every single little two-bit fan page - but I strongly believe we should link to the most popular ones because those are the places where our readers can find points of view that most definitely don't show up on the official MINI web site.

The Wikipedia external links guidelines (and remember they are ONLY guidelines) say that we should certainly include:

  • Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
  • Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

...and it's "Maybe OK to add":

  • Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link.

...and that it's NOT OK to link to:

  • Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

I take this to mean that the recently deleted references to sites like MINI2 and NAM are in the 'Maybe' catagory - and I would prefer to include a couple of them on that basis. However, it is clear that we most definitely should not attempt to list every MINI Club or fan site on the planet. That's quite definitely contrary to Wiki policy.

Since the 'official' MINI site undoubtedly exists primarily to sell products, we should arguably not link to the main MINI site - but the Wiki guidelines also state that we should include links to:

  • Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.

...which says that we should link to the BMW MINI site. Since we have totally contradictory rules, we should go with our gut feeling - and since nobody has yet attempted to delete the link to the official MINI site, it seems that we all feel it should be there regardless of the guidelines (which are only guidelines).

Sites that contain much more TECHNICAL content about the MINI than makes sense to put in the Wiki are fair game for inclusion under the 'Should link to' guidelines - but we should strive to find the best set of information using the minimum number of external links - and again, not link all over the place just because we can.

In the spirit of discussion, I'm going to refrain from reverting or editing the links section for a few days to let everyone have a chance to discuss what links this article should have - but failing that discussion, expect me to revert any attempt to add more junk links and expect me to reinstate removed links that do in fact fall within the Wiki guidelines.

SteveBaker 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:EL is that the external links section of this article should link to the BMW MINI site but not much else.
If there were one or two fan sites that clearly stood out from the rest I would have no problem with linking to them, but I agree fully that we should not link to every fan site in existence. The problem then becomes choosing the top sites and keeping the others off of the page--my experience with wikipedia so far is that this is not possible: Generally people adding such links are active members of, if not the creators of such sites and they are quick to cry foul if we accept some links to sites but exclude others. My prefered solution is to avoid having such links in an external links section. Instead I prefer to follow point 5 on WP:EL
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference."
So, if a club site has useful information we should include that information in the article and cite them as a reference. I see this as important because content that is outside of wikipedia is of little use to the goals of the project (we cannot guarantee free access to such information); properly cited content within wikipedia is of much greater use. JeremyA 06:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
But WP:EL tells us that it's OK to link to the top fan site. IMHO, it would be very wrong to ONLY link to the official MINI site because WP:EL warns us about linking to commercial sites. The official MINI site is also a poor choice because it has almost zero links to other sites and to get to the section where you can talk to MINI Owners, you have to already own a MINI. People seeking information about the car (eg because they want to buy one) NEED to be directed to somewhere like in order to find the kind of information that will never be in this Wiki. eg. Suppose you were thinking of buying an MCS automatic. Nowhere in this Wiki are *we* going to say "The automatic is having terrible software problems - don't buy one" - that information isn't on the official MINI web site - or in any place that it links to. However, go to MINI2 or NAM or one of the other big "fan sites" and you'll find lots of threads about the MCSa that list it's problems. I think we are doing the reader a disservice by excluding the one and only source of 'real' information about the car. Admittedly, there is a problem with picking "the one true fan site" and excluding the wannabies. However, that's no worse than the situation right now where entries are being added and subtracted about daily. At least if the principal editors here are in some sort of agreement - and a conclusion is reached here and clearly stated, argued, and agreed then we can explain to people WHY we are removing their entries. My proposal is to link to MINI's official site and to MINI2 - and to delete all others. I'm happy to listen to arguments as to why some other fan site might be more appropriate - but IMHO, it has to fulfill several criteria: (1) Large membership. (2) Independence from BMW/MINI. (3) International audience. (4) More than just a set of forums, more than just a news site. SteveBaker 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem of choosing the 'top' fan site is indeed an issue - but the problem of keeping other fan sites out of the links is there whether we link to one or to none.

Where possible I prefer linking to articles—we already have an article on MINI2 (which, because it is the subject of the article, has a link to the MINI2 website that I have no problem with), why not just link to that article. Likewise, if there are other notable fansites articles could be written about them too (articles on any non-notable fansite would, of course, be likely to be the subject of an AfD).
Equally, if you were concerned about the commercial nature of the BMW link we could also just go with a link to the BMW article, which already has links to many BMW pages. JeremyA 19:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

So, why not just add to the external links list? This website displays RSS feeds from every major MINI Cooper fansite on the web. --Ivan Diaz 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Because gomotoring is a for-profit site - if we advertise that site - then the floodgates would open and we'd have to link to them all. The Wikipedia guidelines for external links are quite clear on this policy - so, no, we can't link to gomotoring. SteveBaker 21:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, that makes sense. --Ivan Diaz 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that a link be added to the Oxford Plant web site as it is not directly related to selling. I came to this article looking for it originally and was disappointed that it wasn't here -- it took another half hour of Googling to find the link. Orbit47 1 May 2007

Hydrogen Powered MINI

I don't like this section. It talks about a one-off concept car that was trotted out in 2001 and has not been seen since. If we are going to talk about concept cars then let's have a section about concept MINI's and add the Hydrogen car into that - but as it is, it doesn't fit.

I have already removed the sentence that says that the hydrogen MINI would have the same "power and efficiency" because it's not at all clear how you measure the relative efficiency of two utterly different fuels such as gasoline and hydrogen. By miles-per-gallon? That would make zero sense. Miles per dollar? Since there is no common source of cheap commercial hydrogen, that makes no sense. Miles per kilogram? Again - what sense does that make?

I vote to delete the entire section about the hydrogen MINI along with the photo.

SteveBaker 03:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Followup: It looks like the copyright bot removed the photo of the hydrogen MINI - so I took the time to research the MINI concept cars and rolled the Hydrogen MINI into that new section. If anyone has some USABLE (ie with allowable copyright status) photo's of those concept cars, it would be nice to add one or two.

SteveBaker 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti Counterfeit Mini Campaign

I've noticed billboards in the San Francisco Bay Area warning people about fake Minis out there. These billboards have the Mini logo on the corner, so if the manufacturer is paying for this campaign, this counterfeit business must be fairly serious.

Nah - it's a clever advertising campaign. Go to enjoy the fun! SteveBaker 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Classic Mini article is FA - you know what's next!

So - after just a couple of months of work, the classic Mini article made Featured Article. How about we try to push this one up there too?

I've added some photos that add a bit of interest to the article and put in a bunch of references - but we could really use some more quality source material. SteveBaker 02:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the article up for WP:GA/N hopefully that'll create some feedback. SteveBaker 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK! We made it to "Good Article" - Peer review is up next. SteveBaker 22:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Peer Review seem to have dried up - so I'm moving on to WP:FAC. SteveBaker 15:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing not good enough

Per the "writing not good enough" critique, I've tried to clean up the lead paragraph a bit...

  • For the "MINI is both the name of" statement, I strongly think the car should be mentioned first, and the BMW subsidiary should be mentioned second, because most readers coming to the article are probably more interested in the car.
  • I added a mention of the British Motor Corporation in the lead, just to better explain what "The BMW MINI" meant (and because I think it's a fairly important fact to introduce up-front)
  • The predecessor Mini, and how long it was manufactureed, were mentioned in several places throughout the lead paragraph, I tried to consolidate those facts to be near each other
  • I moved the mention of colloquial names ("classic Mini", "new MINI", "BMW MINI", "MINI in all caps") into a single sentence
  • I tried to reduce the number of parentheses... sentences probably read better if the information is included in a normal sentence.

Some additional suggestions for the lead paragraph:

  • Is the "Morris car plant" reference very important? If not, could it be moved down to the body of the article?
  • I think the "classic Mini" reference doesn't need to be explicitely stated. I think it should be more or less obvious to the reader, and could either be moved down to the body, or removed completely.

--Interiot 18:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I like your rewrite very much - thank you! However, in your zeal to condense it - it's now too short (WP:MOS says two or three paragraphs) - so we need to find some more words to pull from the body of the article or revert to a more leisurely description without having to pack so many facts into so few words. I think you also inadvertently introduced an untruth: BMC didn't make the Mini for 40 years - the company changed names and ownerships a dozen times over that period and it was also made by Authi, and a bunch of other overseas companies under license. I thought it was important to mention the Morris plant because it ties the MINI to the history of the classic Mini (which was also made by Morris for some span of it's life). There is a very real danger of getting the impression that BMW just did a knock-off of BMC's design - which isn't really what we're trying to convey here. Also, I wanted to establish naming ("classic Mini" versus "BMW MINI" early on because when one reads the article, it's easy to confuse Mini with MINI (they sound identical) - hence the desire to use 'Classic Mini' everywhere where the old car was referred to (unless it's obvious from context). I'm a little busy at work right now - but I'll take another spin at this tonight. SteveBaker 20:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the "by British Motor Corporation" part to indicate it was done by its successors. I reworded the sentence a bit, because that sentence was getting a little long. But it lost the "made for 40 years", and IMHO there's a tiny bit of discord between "and its successors" and "To distinguish it from its predecessor", but maybe that's just me.
I guess I don't think it should be condensed per-se... I just think it shouldn't often wander off to a different topic and then revisit a topic that was covered a sentence and a half earlier; and I think that a single sentence shouldn't be overly long. Sure, expanding the lead sounds good. In terms of more things to add to the lead section... I think it would be very good to summarize the rest of the article, introduce the reader to things that they'll read in more detail later. Things to include might be... 1) what type of car it is... especially leaning towards the fact that the original Mini was believed to be a very unique body style, 2) a brief overview of the various models maybe. There's probably more that could be included in a summary...
Ahh, maybe the Morris detail can be mentioned in the body? Also, what kind of article can this be if it doesn't mention the words "go-kart-like handling"?? :) --Interiot 20:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
(It would be an article with one less hard-to-find citation!) SteveBaker 00:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Surely there are other, less pretentious ways of distinguishing the BMW Mini from the classic Mini. --Mr. A. 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Mk I and Mk II

We're getting pretty close to the release of the Mk II MINI - with the prospect of a 4-door version, the MINI traveller, a roadster, etc coming along eventually. I think we need to think fairly seriously about a major reorganisation here. Right now, the Mk II is just a little extra 'forward looking' section tacked onto the end of an article that's basically about the Mk I MINI - but over time, the Mk I stuff will become ancient history and the Mk II section will grow. If we look at the way the classic Mini article has turned out, we need to think in terms of changing this article to have a similar structure. Shifts in the where the cars are built need to be tracked - we'll need a timeline showing Mk I to Mk II transition (remembering that the MINI One, MINI One/D and Convertible models will transition to the Mk II platform at different times).

I'd really like to have another shot at Featured Article status - I still don't quite understand why we didn't make it last time around ("writing not good enough" is not an easy thing to "fix") - but the article deserves a shot at joining the Mini article with a gold star. SteveBaker 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mk II fuel economy

I don't know where the 48 mpg claim came from, but the EPA indicates that the 2007 MINI gets 35 mpg on the combined cycle, an improvement of 4mpg.

Does anyone have a source for the 48mpg claim? If not, I'll revise the article with the EPA numbers. Kufat 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no! Don't use those "EPA" numbers. Be very, very careful!

According to the MINI-USA owners lounge website, the 2007 car has not yet undergone EPA testing and it's illegal (in the USA) for car companies to specify fuel consumption figures other than those that the EPA measured. You must either be looking at 2006 data or perhaps you are looking at the '07 MINI Cabrio - which is still using the Mk I platform through the 2007 model year. It is also possible that we have a confusion between US gallons and UK gallons (UK gallons are bigger). The number I heard claimed was 42mpg for the '07 Cooper'S and 45mpg for the non-S '07 Cooper - but those numbers come from car reviewers so 48 could very well be the "right" number for the base Cooper or maybe for the MINI One.

According to MC2 magazine, (Jan/Feb 2007, page 38), the 07 Cooper rates 51mpg on the "EU Extra-urban cycle" (and yes, that's US gallons. The Cooper'S manages 41.3 on the same test. However, I believe that's an easier test than the EPA maybe 48 is about right.

I know this much - my 2005 Cooper'S Cabrio really, truly gets somewhere around 38mpg (US gallons) on a mixed urban/freeway cycle if I drive it like I want to save fuel (ie keeping the RPM in the 2000/3000 band, turning off the A/C and keeping the tyre pressures a little on the high side). But if I drive it like a MINI is intended to be driven (WOOOHOOO!) and have the A/C blasting - with the roof down (because this is Texas and it's 110 degrees out there in the summer) - then I'd be lucky to get 25mpg. This is a MASSIVE range of consumption figures - yet the EPA tries to encapsulate it into just two numbers.

My '07 Cooper'S is due to be unloaded at the docks in Charleston on Thursday - so pretty soon I'll be able to tell you first-hand!

SteveBaker 05:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the link? Those "EPA" numbers are from the "EPA" and listed on a website maintained by the "federal government." ;) They're quite official, and they're for the Mk II Cooper, and they're not for the convertible. Do you really think that a MINI forum is a more reliable source for federal testing information than a site maintained by the Department of Energy? Kufat 14:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get that from "a MINI forum" - I got it from the official MINI USA web site (which happens to include a forum). Up until a few days ago, clicking on the stats page for the '07 car produced something that said that the EPA tests hadn't been done yet. However, the EPA results evidently came in just recently because MINI-USA are now reflecting the figures on the EPA site. Well, anyway - the higher figures in our article (which I didn't add BTW) evidently come from the "EU combined cycle" tests rather than the EPA tests...which should we quote in the article? Dunno - we should probably have some kind of policy on that. Anyway - you can see the EU MPG figures in a bunch of places on the web - here for example: (Note that those MPG figures are in Imperial gallons - you have to multiply them by 0.833 to get US gallon figures). I presume that the statement in our article "Fuel economy of 48.7 mpg on the combined cycle" refers to a 2007 MINI Cooper running the EU Combined cycle - with the results reported in Imperial Gallons. We need to do a lot of qualifying of that figure! But we have MINI One, Cooper, Cooper'S - with auto or manual gearbox, with EU or EPA figures, on Urban, Freeway or combined cycles with results in Imp.Gallons, Liters or US gallons. That's well over a hundred different fuel consumption figures that one might quote! SteveBaker 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mk I and Mk II VS. R50/R53 and R56

BMW MINI owners don't use the Mk I Mk II convention, they refer to the two generations by their production names:

First Generation

  • R50: MINI One & Cooper Coupe (2001-2006)
  • R52: MINI One, Cooper and Cooper S Convertible (2003-2007)
  • R53: MINI Cooper S (2002-2006)

Second Generation

  • R55: MINI Clubman (2008-)
  • R56: MINI One, Cooper, Cooper S Coupe (2007-)
  • R57: MINI One, Cooper, Cooper S Convertible (2008-)


I think we should use the R5# convention in the wikipedia article. 00:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In the same way that BMW 3 Series owners use the E21, E30, E36, etc convention TKTKTKTK 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that MINI owners use the production names. I'm very active in the US MINI community and Mk I/Mk II appear to be used much more frequently than the 'R' numbers. The R numbers are fine for concisely stating whether you are talking about a Cooper or a Cooper'S or something - but if you want to differentiate between the first and second generations, the 'R' numbers get really unwieldy. You've even highlighted that in your list by labelling them by "generations". If I use the 'R' numbers then I have to say things like "The R50, R52 and R53 models used the Tritech engine" - saying "The Mk I models used the Tritech engine" is much easier and more concise. SteveBaker 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the BMW link for a reason - they've had to deal with the same kind of unwieldy nomenclature. Our Canadian clubs use the R convention, as do any US or UK clubs I've come across, as do the large MINI enthusiast sites on the internet (NAM, MINI2, MotoringFile - a quick peek through any of the three will reveal a clear majority of use). Unless you're willing to claim personal authority - wouldn't it be best to defer to common usage? This article was this first time I'd seen Mk I or Mk II used to describe the MINI. TKTKTKTK 05:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism addition from anon user.

An anonymous user has twice added this text to the "Criticism" section. I've twice reverted it because I believe it to be untrue. I've owned a 2002 model year MINI - and I know a lot of people with 2001's and 2002's and I've heard NOTHING of these issues.

We need solid references for this material (if indeed it is true);

Early examples of the MINI from inception to mid 2003 can be beset with problems, faults and niggles. The first cars were all the subject of numerous safety recalls, most famously the fuel-filler aperture could allow a small static spark to occur when touched by a petrol pump nozzle, which according to BMW could in extreme cases cause a 'small fireball' to occur during refuelling. Other recalls included a front subframe modification to cure the car's propensity to pull to one side during normal driving; a modification to the parking-brake lever which corrected the tendency for this to self-release; a waterproofing in the offside A-pillar which could cause electrical gremlins due to water ingress. The gearbox on 5-speed models up to mid 2003 could prove difficult to put into reverse. The worst affected appear to be the last cars fitted with the Rover 25 derived gearbox built by West Midland Gears Ltd, raising the question that since that company knew its product would shortly no longer be required, perhaps they were less conscientious about quality control. BMW specified a Getrag gearbox from Germany from mid 2003 onwards.

Thanks SteveBaker 19:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve.

Ed the anonymous user here! I agree wholeheartedly with your decision to remove the above. I'll email or post here in discussion, a more factual and less inflammatory account of the problems which affected the earliest MINIs here in the UK complete with links to respected authorities' sites. I stress that I'm not suggesting all cars were affected by problems, but the *recalls* certainly applied to all cars. The reason that they may not be familiar to you in the USA is that the earliest recall applied to only the first 500 cars sold in Europe, literally a week or two after launch. The subframe recall was in late 2001. I'm very surprised that the handbrake recall wasn't applicable to your 2002 car, since here in the UK, this recall was implemented in Jan 2003 and applied to all cars sold up to that point.


Has anyone found an explanation of the "overboost"? Nothing I've found explains it. I found no shortage of sources mentioning it (here here and here for example). They all just say unhelpful things like it gives more torque under heavy load. More torque than what? This just sounds like what engines do, to me. A few imply that this is "temporary" but surely this doesn't mean the engine can only hit peak power for a few seconds? Anyway I was curious if there was a better way to explain this- it doesn't sound like anything I've heard of before and the lack of explanation makes me wonder what this is about. Typically turbo engines are described as operating at a certain maximum level of boost, so I can't figure how "overboost" is anything different. Friday (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Turbocharger#Boost (and the couple of sections after that) describe how excess pressure from the turbo may be dumped via the waste-gate in order to avoid overly leaning the mixture and in order to keep fuel consumption in check. I presume that the MINI engine allows electronic control of the waste gate in order to provide a short period of extra boost - to the detriment of fuel economy - and possibly having to be limited in duration to avoid excessive wear on the turbocharger's bearings. SteveBaker 11:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand that- modern turbo engines will limit boost for several reasons. But that's just how turbo engines work, I hadn't heard people describe anything called "overboost" before. Seems weird to me that turbo wear would be the issue- I'd gotten the impression a good modern turbo will generally outlast the engine it's on. I guess I'm trying to figure out whether this turbo system actually does something that others don't, or whether they just use the term "overboost" to describe normal turbocharger behavior. Maybe this system just operates at a higher maximum boost than the previous supercharged engine, and they wanted to capture this concept in one simple word? If it really cuts boost after a short period of time, seems like this would have bizarre driveability consequences, i.e. "I was accelerating normally, and then suddenly some of the power went away." Everything I've read makes it sound like "Hey, if you floor it you'll get more power than if you don't!" but that doesn't sound to me like a feature, that's just how cars are. Friday (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I may have answered my own question. Many of the sources went out of their way to say that overboost adds torque but not horsepower. So, this can only mean that it only works at lower RPMs and not higher. Maybe the turbo can't move enough air to create (say) 12 PSI at 5-6000rpm, but it can at say 2-3000rpm. So, maybe they tuned the software to behave this way. It'd be nice to have some explanation in the article, altho obviously we'd need a proper source, not just our own speculation. Friday (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think what SteveBaker meant was that the wastegate allows the turbo to boost beyond standard operating limits for short periods of time. If say the turbo was designed to provide a maximum boost of 12 PSI, the engine control unit could lift boost to 15 PSI temporarily (e.g: a few seconds). This presumably occurs if you happen to stomp the accelerator really hard & fast or something. The purpose of this, I suppose, would be to get a bit of extra push off the line, and then power will build normally from that point onwards. However, I'm not really familiar on how the MINI overboost operates exactly. There is a lot more info floating around on the internet about the Porsche 911 Turbo overboost feature. VectorD 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I would describe that as an engine with 15 lbs boost which (for reasons I don't know but am curious about) can only sustain it for a few seconds. I suppose the marketing guys would never let them describe it that way so maybe they invented the "overboost" term. If it can operate at 15 psi, why not just call that the maximum? I can't see how the "power would build normally from there"- on the contrary, power seems likely to go down from there, when the boost is reduced. I suppose I'm just wandering into original research territory tho. Unless a source shows up which discusses this perhaps it's not relevant to the article. Friday (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I imagine it can't sustain 15 lbs due to engine durability reasons. The marketing guys can't say it's rated at 15 psi because the turbo can't sustain it all day long. If the turbo was made to sustain 15 psi, it would probably result in early failure (keeping in mind the turbo is only designed to produce 12 psi). Let me use a (not great) analogy:
Imagine if a particular piece of electrical wire can safely handle 20 amps all day long. The wire can also potentially handle short bursts of 30A for a few seconds (the wire will become a bit warm). However, if the wire was asked to carry 30A all day long, it would sooner or later smoulder and catch fire. Now, could the manufacturer claim the wire is rated at 30A? The answer is no unless they were inviting lawsuits.
As for power 'going down' once overboost ends: remember you said the overboost only works at low rpm. And power is a function of revs, so power would still likely rise afterwards even though the torque has plateaued and is on the decline. VectorD 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sections

There are two different sections on the MINI Mk II. They have completely different text but share most of the content. Can someone merge them? -- NaBUru38 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information regarding diesel

In one of the introductory paragraphs it says that the diesel MINI One D spanned 2001-2006. I believe it was introduced in 2003, but it certainly wasn't available in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Racing Section

The Racing section is terrible right now, and quite unencyclopedic. Also, "unmasculine"? That seems a little bit ridiculous for an encyclopedia (I'm too lazy to sign in repeatedly, so whatever) 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a vandal - it's been fixed. SteveBaker 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MINI company

Is there a real company (or is it just one BMW factory) that produces MINI?, hard to find any info --— Typ932T | C  18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A company called "Mini" does not exist. Mini is just a brand of BMW AG, Munich. Even on the homepage I didn´t notice any reference to a company called "Mini" ( BMW AG is manufacturer ( => company => company portrait => locations) and developer of the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it then real a Subsidiary or better to call it as BMW brand? --— Typ932T | C  09:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it´s not a subsidiary. BMW is developer and producer of the Mini. I also found it in an article written for the New York Times ( Mini has never been a company before. Mini was first a model of Austin and Morris and later a brand of Rover Group. BMW decided to maintain the trademark rights for "Mini" when rejecting Rover in 2000 due to the progress in the development of the car. To continue the development BMW built up a new department in Munich under Ulrich Kranz (Head of development of the second generation of the New Mini and the Mini Clubman) I think someone should correct this in the infobox (I wouldn´t like to do that because I´m not a registered wikipedia member). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

MINI does have a separate business entity in most countries. However, it a brand managed by the corporate holding company of the BMW GROUP. Saying it is built by BMW would be equal to saying Ferrari is built by Fiat, a Jaguar/Land Rover are built by Ford, Lamborghini/Bentley are built by Volkswagen, or so on. Under US EPA classification "MINI" and the above brands are listed as "manufacturers". Greasywheel (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No Ferrari is own company owned by Fiat, but is MINI a company? --— Typ932T | C  15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That is one factor to consider. In the part of the world I live in, MINI is marketed as a marque distinct from BMW (is this worldwide?). We should retain this distinction, even if they roll out of the same factory as BMW-branded vehicles. Friday (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The main point was that it was called in article as subsidiary, which I think refers to own company, anyway that has been changed now --— Typ932T | C  15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And I dont know what kind company is eg. Land Rover? because Im not native English speaker Im not sure what subsidiary can mean, is it only a real company or can it be also brand? --— Typ932T | C  15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If there was a company called Mini, which is manufacturer of the car „Mini“, someone should verify that such a company really exists. Each company is registered e.g. as a Ltd. anywhere. A company is defined by law and not by opinions, as wikipedia is a collection of facts and not of opinions. As a little help: Ferrari is a company with the parent Fiat, Bentley Motorcars Ltd. is a company with the parent Volkswagen and Rolls-Royce Motorcars Ltd. is a company with the parent BMW ( => Legal (below) => Company Information). Here it says: "Rolls-Royce Motorcars Limited is a company registered in England with number 3522604 and has its office at Ellesfield Avenue, Bracknell, Berkshire RG128TA." So, Rolls-Royce is a BMW subsidiary and a self-existing company as well. BUT: If you compare this site to the equivalent Mini site you will see, that there is no registered company called „Mini“, which is responsible for development, production or anything else ( Today MINI is (in contrast to Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Ferrari etc.) nothing more than a brand – a name and a logo which are used by BMW AG to sell cars, they weren´t able to sell with a BMW logo and under the brand name of BMW. Here another piece of information about the manufacturer of the MINI: I even cannot find that a company „MINI“ has ever been manufacturer of the car MINI before. Even Wikipedia says, that Mini had been manufactured by Austin and Morris and later by Rover.
Another example for a car with a name that stands for a brand but not for a company is Maybach. Although the cars aren´t named Mercedes-Benz (but Maybach 57 and Maybach 62) a company called Maybach does not exist. These cars are anyhow developed and manufactured by Mercedes-Benz. Max. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeo I tried to find the mark of last "Old" minis I think they are Rovers? which would co to Predecessor field as Rover Mini. --— Typ932T | C  17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The MINI has been produced by multiple manufacturers over the years as well, so MINI could be construed as referring to the car, hence MINI (BMW) as it identifies it as the BMW era mini over the British Leyland mini or BMCSilent52 (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Upon inspecting the MINI website, under the Ts&Cs i've found this in regard to the company: "MINI is a BMW Group brand" "COPYRIGHTS © Copyright 2003 BMW AG, Munich, Germany" In this regard, these both clearly demonstrate MINI is not a company, merely a brand of BMW and as such the manufacturer is BMW Silent52 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. So to clarify, "BMW" is a brand of the "BMW Group" as well. MINI is a brand of the "BMW Group", which is the parent company of the BMW, MINI, and Rolls Royce Brands.Greasywheel (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Mini (BMW). Andrewa (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the article to "Mini (BMW)", twice, per MOS:TM:

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
  • avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
  • instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

It's true that there are two cars named Mini, but the name is not an acronym, and the current model is disambiguated, reasonably enough, with "(BMW)". If we want to point out that the manufacturer likes to write the name in all-caps, we can mention this in the intro, but Wikipedia never follows this usage (MOS:CAPS: "Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules"). ProhibitOnions (T) 08:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No - MOS:TM is a GUIDELINE - and only a guideline it's not a policy - it's not cast in stone. It even tells you right at the top of that page to use commonsense when applying it. The capitalisation of the name MINI is not just a manufacturer style thing - everyone who writes about the car, both online and in print capitalises it in order to distinguish it from the classic Mini. We've discussed this at least a couple of times in the past - both here and in various GAC/FAC's and in the Automobile Wikiproject. I'm reverting your change - please DO NOT re-revert without getting a new consensus first. SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You state that it would be "NECESSARY" to distinguish it from the classic Mini:
This is just plain a wrong statement; there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia where the same name is used for different cars. Why would you think someone would believe such a blatant lie obviously false statement?
The classic Mini is called classic 14 times in this article. Why, if it's distinguished by the casing?
You also state that it would no just be the manufacturer who uses uppercase. I fail to see the point here, but let's have a look:
From the first twenty Google hits of bmw mini, most are from BMW, one is Wikipedia, one is unrelated, the others are 6:4 against your statement.
To pick another sample, let's check some media: Autobild, Auto, Motor, Sport, Topgear, Car Today, Auto Express, The Times, NYT, Car and Driver, Car Magazine Online; and let's throw some odd car club in the mix: ADAC The result is 8:2 against your statement.
The results seem to indicate that far from "everyone who writes about the car, both online and in print" uses the capitalized spelling. (Though I haven't checked prints yet.) Another statement of yours which is very, very wrong.
You also state that the issue would be "resolved in FAQ and GA debates".
You convenientely forgot to point out where these discussions are.
Your statement seems to imply that no further discussion would be useful (since it is "resolved"). This is not how Wikipedia works however.
Altogether, I fail to see a reason to contradict the guideline. Common sense dictates that we should leave the area of common English spelling only if necessary. As demontrated above, this is clearly not the case here. -- (talk)
I don't see that it's a huge deal either way. But, MINI is the official name, it's widely (if not universally) used, and it makes a useful distinction. So I would lead toward keeping MINI. Friday (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
MOS:TM explicitely deals with trademarks (aka official names), so you can assume that this fact is already taken into account.
Also, thanks for giving me the opportunity to repeat my points:
It may be widely used, but my (admittedley short) research indicates that it's not as widely used as plain Mini. Feel free to come up with other samples.
Wikipedia has hundreds of articles on different cars sharing the same name. Distinction between them can be done in other ways.
Please come up with reasons why the guideline should be contradicted here. -- (talk)
I'm not at all impressed by your "research". My research is not "admittedly short". I happen to be an expert on this subject. I've owned three MINIs (including the first to be registered in the state of Texas and the first MINI Convertible off the production line to be built to US specifications). I've also owned and restored three Minis over the years. I still have one of each. In order to write this article, the Mini and Mini Moke articles, I went out and bought every single book ever written on the MINI and the Mini Moke - and over 100 written about the me - I know how just about every author writes about these cars.
I also run the Mini Owners of Texas club (Yeah "Mini" - we started up before the MINI existed and we anguish a lot about renamining ourselves "MiNi" or "miNI" in order to keep both member communities happy). We have many hundreds of members - as far as I know - all of them use MINI to mean the modern car and Mini to mean the older one. On the rare occasion that some newbie joins the site and misuses the convention - they'll get corrected in short order by half a dozen members before you can blink.
But don't take my word for it:
  • Go to sites where both cars are discussed ( for example) - note that the site maintainers and pretty much all of the many posters there use the same convention.
  • Magazines: Picking up the latest copy of MC2 magazine from my desk here (to pick an example at random) - I just checked through this month's edition - every single article that's talking about the modern car says "MINI" and without fail, ever single article about the classic car says "Mini" - articles that talk about both cars use the convention appropriately on a case-by-case basis - I don't ever recall a time when they messed up.
  • Aftermarket parts manufacturers: How about the biggest: - take a look - they are VERY consistent about this usage. Even in their side-bar menu - where (for graphical/stylistic reasons) they use all caps for everything - they used smaller capitals for the 'INI' of Mini than for the 'INI' of MINI. I think you can appreciate that this was no accident.
  • Owners clubs: Well, I could point out - but I put that site together - so that's cheating (although it's MediaWiki-based - you can see how my members write - it's not just me). How about...oh... - same convention. Don't take my word for it - here is a list of every single Mini/MINI owner's club in the entire USA - pick any one you like - email the owner/president and ask...I guarantee you'll get the same answer.
Owners of the classic car like to joke that the MINI has bigger letters because it's a big car (well - it's big compared to the Mini). I don't know where you're getting your research from - but it's very unconvincing compared to typical usage around the world. Wikipedia guidelines are there for the dubious and difficult cases. Take NVIDIA, nVidia or Nvidia for example - currently being hotly contested at Nvidia - all three variations are in common use and they all mean the same company). In this case, only one version is in common use and out there in the real world, there is zero debate on the subject.
What possible benefit is there in Wikipedia being virtually the only site to get it wrong? Following some petty little rule is the only possible reason. WP:MOS is a guideline. Guidelines are just guide people who don't know better...they are not rules cast in stone that overly-officious people can use to beat up editors who have done due diligence and come to a rational conclusion. There is an exceedingly good case to be made to ignoring this guideline. Remember - one of the four pillars of this community is that we are specifically directed to "Break All Rules" (if it makes the encyclopedia better). Well, this isn't even a rule - it's a hint - and we're ignoring it because it's quite wrong in this case. This is not about the trademark "MINI" or the company or vehicle's official name - it's about the usage of a term that disambiguates a difficult confusion in an elegant (and rather modern) way. Nobody goes to the pH page (a measure of acidity for chemists) and complains that this is just an initialism for "Preponderance of Hydrogen" and should therefore be written "PH" - because every chemist on the planet uses "pH" and that's the way the article is rightly written. This is just exactly like that.
Reinforcing to our readership that the MINI is always in UPPER CASE when it refers to this car is helping our readers - and we have appropriate redirects AND disambiguation links from Mini - so navigation is in no way impaired. We absolutely need to say (in the article) that MINI means the new car and Mini means the old...and having said that (because it's true and verifiable and important) then you'd have the article go on to completely ignore what we just said and use "Mini" for both of them!!! Surely you can see that's just laughably stupid to sow that kind of confusion just to meet some rather minor style guideline which we are quite at liberty to ignore?
It's also not like this article came to be this way by accident - I'm a 10,000 edit guy with two FA's and numerous GA's under my belt - I'm very familiar with WP:MOS (how could you fail to be if you've pushed articles through FAC?!) - and if for one moment I thought the article would be better titled "Mini (BMW)" - it most certainly would be - and I wouldn't be wasting my evening laying this out for you in such meticulous detail. We've discussed it at some length on several occasions an in several forums and a consensus has been reached. It's NOT AT ALL appropriate for you to barge in here and start wrecking and reverting a carefully considered, well researched decision without checking your facts and gaining consensus first. Your first set of changes were perhaps excusable ("be bold" is another pillar) - although moving an article in the teeth of the opposition from long-term content creators without extensive prior discussion goes well beyond "being bold"! But after I pointed it out in my first edit comment when I reverted your somewhat understandable mistake - you should certainly not have re-reverted - that's just plain rude.
This kind of mindless application of mere guidelines as if they were chiseled on granite tablets and handed down from on high is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia such a miserable place to work for so much of the time. So - let's end this right here and get on with some USEFUL editing. Go hit the library and see if you can't get fill in some {{Fact}} tags with actual references - do something that actually IMPROVES the encyclopedia.
SteveBaker (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that we have two conflicting views on what is the "real world" - for you it's a number of fan websites and third-line parts manufacturers, for me it's the The Times (arguably the most famous newspaper in the world) and the ADAC (German automobile club with more "population" than all but four US states). But we don't have to rely on my knowledge of the world if we have Wikipedia: I checked the magazines from Automobile magazine I haven't already checked before[1], they all use Mini over MINI.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] I also checked the two premier English-language weeklies: Time Magazine uses Mini, I couldn't find anything in the the Economist at all.
Convinced? Didn't think so. But at least cut back on the attitude ("I don't know where you're getting your research from", "[...] only one version is in common use and out there in the real world", "Wikipedia being virtually the only site to get it wrong").
Two minor points:
You again failed to point out the discussions you previously had about the subject. Also, you shouldn't assume I'm ProhibitOnions just to sneak in a personal attack. Please rectify.
Last, your appeal to authority isn't helping. While you know more about Minis than I do, I started on Wikipedia back before usernames were introduced. Nope, I won't prove it, but I don't have to because either of our bragging is totally pointless.
For me the case is clear: Mainstream usage is Mini, brand owner and fan usage is MINI. Now we only have to decide what audience Wikipedia is serving. -- (talk)

Lets See: //\\ AirbusA346 //\\ (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a week without any further contributions to the discussion. So since we have a guideline which is backed up by common sense, and since we have no good reason to contradict that guideline we should move. The GAR was started a good long while after the discussion about this was started, so it should be ignored as a reason to postpone. (Sorry, got that wrong. Even more important though is the question whether it should be GA with a wrong title.) -- (talk)

I do not agree in any way with your bogus summary - you have not successfully countered my usage arguments - you found ONE place where the capitalisation was lowercase - I found literally dozens where it was not - INCLUDING every single one of the citations in the article. You do not have consensus either. Summarizing to selectively pick and choose the arguments you want to defeat is an old Wikipedia tactic and it won't work. Hence I will continue to revert if you rename the article again. SteveBaker (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how the discussion is supposed to continue if you don't read my part of it. Specifically, I found not "ONE" but sixteen major mainstream sources to backup my claim. How am I supposed to interpret the fact that you simply ignore this? Correspondingly, you haven't found "literally dozens" but six sources, three of which are against policy. It is not the first time that you make claims that are trivial to disprove. Don't waste our time with this in the future.
So, yes, of course your usage argument is countered. Again, you mentioned number of fan websites and third-line parts manufacturers, I mentioned major news organizations including all magazines from Automobile magazine and a number of well-known newspapers. Despite all this, I will address your concerns once more: I now searched all newspapers from either the USA or the UK from the top 40[2], The Sun, Wall Street Journal, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror. The result is 4:0 in favor of Mini. (USA Today's search is a mess, I couldn't find anything.) Also, I checked all article references with ISBNs and Mini or MINI in the title: One ISBN is wrong and points to "Motorcycle modifying: the definitive guide", one is not in the LOC, the other four, again, all use Mini.
Since you again failed to point out the alleged consensus reached before, I'll call your bluff; from now on, I will disregard this as a misinformation.
I never renamed the article, as I don't even see the fucking move button at the top of the page. Please check your facts more carefully in the future.
Last, I thought the argument tree might help matters. If you have specific points of critique, please state them. Please exclude bad faith assumptions from your reply. -- (talk)
OK - Please either remove or sign your "Argument tree" - I don't agree with it - it's a very biassed summary and misses many important points that I made (above). It should not remain here as some kind of official summary - it's your viewpoint and yours alone. Defeat by summarization is an old debating trick and it won't work. It's also unhelpful to spread your debate out over so many places - that's another debating trick that might actually work because I don't have the time and energy to track down all of the places that parallel debates have been fired off. Pick ONE.
The debate is in the Good article review, on the MINI(BMW) talk page, you've left points on my talk page - and now here. I don't have the time to go and make the same points in all of those places. Pick one and cut off the others until we reach a conclusion.
Secondly - none of your "references" are in any way authoritative...Top Gear!!! Have you ever actually watched their TV show!! It's not authoritative - it's comedy. Car reviewers churn out dozens of reviews a month - it's a production line and their journalistic credentials are amongst the worst out there. Let's look at people who actually know what they're talking about: I have over thirty books about the car on my bookshelf at home (most of which are referenced in the article - I won't repeat them here). Written by experts. I have a pile of perhaps 100 magazines on the subject of these cars - and I can probably point you to a few hundred websites. You've found a few journalists who are either unaware of the convention - or have mindless editors who do what you're trying to do - apply a guideline as if it were a law.
This situation is analogous to the article pH (a chemistry term relating to acidity and alkalinity). Strictly - it's an acronym for 'prevelance of Hydrogen' (or something). Why do we not apply the rule here and force it all to uppercase? Because 100% of chemistry experts use 'pH' and none whatever of them use 'PH'. Sure - you could probably find some children's guide to chemistry - or some newspaper report about acid rain that would get it wrong - but if you refer to proper chemistry books and authoritative journals - they ALL without exception write 'pH'. It's the same deal here.
The goal of Wikipedia is to make a better encyclopedia. We are told in the very first things we're taught as new editors to "Ignore All Rules". What that means is not that it's OK to vandalise and have means that we should consider ourselves able to ignore minor guidelines (such as this one) in such cases where we can make the encyclopedia better by doing so. This is without doubt one of those cases - none (literally none) of the authoritative sources write the word 'Mini' unless they are talking about the 1959 to 2000 car - if Wikipedia doesn't follow this convention we'll be doing people who want to know about the car a great disservice. We are going to say in the article that the word "MINI" is correctly written in capitals - and then we're going to proceed to write it in mixed case...that makes us look like a bunch of amateurs! This is not the same situation as with other 'style' capitalisations such as 'nVidia' or 'XBOX' - those are not widely observed (even amongst the fan communities) - but MINI is. Furthermore - this peculiar capitalisation was done for very good reason - to avoid confusion between two kinda-similar kinda-related cars that are not the same. Sure - when a manufacturer does weird capitalisation for trademark or style - we might want to ignore it. But BMW actually own all of the trademarks for the original car - and could have used them - but this way is simply less confusing. Note that I'm not talking about Wikipedia's disambiguation - I'm talking about real-world disambiguation. You may not agree with the reason - but the world doesn't always work the way you wish it might and it's not likely to change to suit some Wikipedia guideline. We'll quite simply have a better article if we choose to make this article an exception to the rule - just as we do for (for example) pH.
SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I ask you once again: Please state the "many important points" I missed. I try to be constructive with the tree and don't see what's wrong with it.
I did not spread out the discussion, your remark is a lie without any basis in reality. Please do not repeat it unless you have evidence. The proper process to rename in article is describe on WP:RM, and that's the process I followed. (At least I'm not aware of any irregularity.)
The first mention of the article title in the the GAR page is from 2008-04-02, a week after my s/MINI/Mini/ edit and the start of our little discussion. Tell the others to follow procedure, not me.
Your bashing on my references is pathetic. I used all magazines from Automobile magazine, all UK/US newspapers from the List of newspapers in the world by circulation plus Time Magazine and The Times. This set is not "in any way authoritative"? Also, it doesn't matter if the are comedy or Shakespeare, as long as they are WP:RELIABLE#News_organizations and talk about the Mini.
Your references, on the other hand, are a joke. Half of them are just plain against policy, the others are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Now you mention the references from the article. I won't bother to check all of them, but the sample I checked all use Mini in the title, not MINI.
Your point about pH is a Straw Man - my point is MOS:TM, not some text about chemistry; pH is not a trademark. (In fact, similar to units of measurement, chemical symbol are fixed-cased, but you already knew that.)
Your rambling about WP:IGNORE is also completely pointless; we all agree that we should ignore minor rules if they prevent us from improving Wikipedia. We just don't agree that MINI would be an improvement over Mini, so there is no reason to ignore a rule.
I really would like to listen in to a conversation you have with your minipals:
Steve: "Ah listen, I just got new parts for my Mini!"
Pal: "For you MINI? But I thought you sold your MINI?"
Steve: "Nope, I never sold my Mini, I sold my MINI."
Pal: "What now, did you or did you not sell your MINI?"
Steve: "I sold my MINI, not my Mini!!"
Pal: "Stop mucking around and tell me which car you sold."
87: "Guys? Have a look here: Adjective.
--- (talk)
Look, you've both given your opinions. I don't see that further badgering is helpful. Friday (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither do I. -- (talk)
I should at least reply to some inaccuracies in 87's points.
  • The pH issue is not a Strawman - its a closely analogous situation where the rule has been ignored - it serves to demonstrate (if such is required) that Wikipedians are at liberty to ignore this guideline where it runs contrary to convention in those well versed in the subject matter.
  • The fact that the names of the two cars would be confusing if enacted in audio speech is neither here nor there - the convention is there - it's widely used and it's totally useless in spoken English. However in written English it's very useful and almost universally adopted in places where these cars are spoken about a lot - just because bough (of a tree) and bow (at the waist) sound alike and could be confused in spoken English doesn't mean we have to be forced to spell them the same way.
  • Your "checking" of the actual titles of the references in the article is bogus - you only checked the ISBN records (you said as much earlier). If you look at the actual books and magazines - you'll see that the case is 100% consistent as I say. It is widely the case that ISBN records have different capitalisation to the actual book titles - you can see this all over the place. The people who type those records in don't know about MINIs and Minis. Just because others get this wrong doesn't mean that we have to.
SteveBaker (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Please name the guideline ignored in pH's case - it's certainly not MOS:TM.
Spoken and written English are not unrelated ("neither here nor there"), as much as you want them to be. You and BMW artificially want to create a new mode of operation here, namely that written English is deliberately different from spoken English because the written version simply cannot be reproduced in speech. That's a first - why should we let you get away with it? Obviously, the consensus among press products is that we shouldn't.
I did not only checked the ISBN records, I checked the Library of Congress, which is the authoritative source for information like this (at least for the USA). Now the ball is firmly in your court, and blabbering about "actual books" (very much like you did in the past) isn't going to help you. Show evidence that the LOC is not pertinent or at least show evidence of a conflicting title in another location. (Don't waste our time with the book's covers.) -- (talk)


  1. ^ All but two actually: One didn't have a webpage, one was in Slovenian
  2. ^ I did the NYT before, see above. It uses MINI.

87's Completely Personal (but nonetheless accurate) Argument Tree


Follows MOS:TM (Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official") and MOS:CAPS (Trademarks should be written in a way that follows standard English text formatting and capitalization rules.)
Only a guideline, hence not binding.
It's still a guideline and not to be arbitrarily ignored.


Is widely used.
Assertion without substance: The samples from Automobile magazine, major English-language newspapers and the article's references' titles prefer Mini by far. A rough googling points in the same direction.
Is widely used by sources close to the topic (fan forums, subject magazines, aftermarket parts manufacturers)
Is used by the manufacturer.
MOS:TM is made for exactly this situation, so manufacturer's wishes are already considered.
Is necessary in order to distinguish classic Mini from modern Mini.
Assertion without substance: Hundreds of articles in Wikipedia already deal with this. Disambig is not a new problem for Wikipedia.
Using case to disambig is inadequate at best. Evidence: The current article on the BMW Mini has 14 uses of "classic" to distinguish BMW and classic Minis.

Third opinion

Here's my take. First off, this little edit war may cost you the GA status, which is fairly disconcerting to me. I think Prohibit's comments on the GAR page are fairly enlightening, specifically: "the ongoing use of capital letters in the title and to emphasize the brand name throughout suggests a fansite, not an encyclopedia article." I understand you're trying to be as accurate as possible here, and yes, technically the MOS is only a guideline and has exceptions, but I don't think this is case for that. As such, the article should be Mini (BMW), and the first line can be MINI or whatever you want. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another third opinion here. No good reason not to follow the guideline for this issue. Appears that the media and press generally use the uncap spelling while the manufacturer and fansites use the all caps. As we are not a fansite we should probably stick to the guidline. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
One man's "fansite" is another man's "subject matter expert". It's not just web-sites run for and by enthusiasts of the car. Professional magazine writers (eg MC2) and aftermarket parts manufacturers also follow the convention. A magazine written by and for (say) cosomologists is "expert" - but a magazine written by and for car owners, restorers, parts makers and mechanics is a "fanzine". That's a double-standard and it's neither fair nor correct. SteveBaker (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
(I'm glad that you haven't asked us to be fair and balanced.)
The Mini is a mainstream phenomenon, so mainstream sources are available. Wikipedia is a mainstream resource, so mainstream sources are preferable. Now if mainstream newspapers or television shows would start to cover cosmological topics, and if a majority of them would start to refer to the Great Bang, then Wikipedia should of course get in line with them. Neither is likely to happen though, so this is another Straw Man.
(Oh, and, look who's spreading the discussion now.) -- (talk)

Fourth Opinion

It's lunacy to change it from MINI to Mini, take for instance the Audi TT That's capitalised, when following prohibit onions lead that should be Audi tt, the same goes for the BMW M3/M5/X3/X4/X5/X6 etc, it's simple, MINI is the way people distinguish the old from the new

It's a pretty heated discussion, please avoid anything that could be construed as a personal attack.
The guideline asks for Mini ("Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'") and Audi TT ("Using all caps is preferred if the letters are prononunced individually, even if they don't stand for anything."). -- (talk)

Fifth Opinion

I've seen nothing above regarding MINI versus Mini that could not be said of REALTOR vs Realtor, TIME vs Time, or KISS vs Kiss; all three of which are already explicitly listed on that guideline page which has stood for a very long time. As far as making the article easier to understand by using MINI, if that was true, then, the Classic designation should not be necessary, as it is presumed to be common knowledge that MINI is the new car, and Mini is the old. Otherwise, it seems like Wikipedia is being used as a way to drum a certain POV in that MINI should be the new car, etc. Neier (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sixth opinion (this is a weird way to do it)

  • Support. All good sources seem to use "Mini", and it is not an acronym. Wide use of the phrase "classic Mini" also means writing in capitals seems unnecessary. Horsesforcorses (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does this proposed change make the encyclopedia better?

Would just ONE person...just one...anyone...please tell me in what way the encyclopedia would be improved by renaming this article? Right now, I can't think of a single one. I can, however, come up with many reasons (as explained previously) why this guideline ought to be ignored in this case in order to make the encyclopedia better:

  1. People who know about the car already (be they fans, owners, mechanics, part suppliers, whatever) who come to read about the car here at Wikipedia will expect it to be written in uppercase. Lowercase (for that community of readers) is undoubtedly worse.
  2. People who don't know about the convention are guaranteed to be confused when the article says (with good reason - and plenty of references) that the word 'mini' is written in capitals when referring to this car and mixed case when referring to the other one...and then we proceed to use mixed case for both. That's just nuts - and it's most certainly not a good thing.

Now - please give me even one good reason why the encylopedia will be better for doing that? Forget sticking to the guideline - we're not required to do that if it makes the encyclopedia worse as a result. So far - all I hear are (weak) reasons why my points may be thought to be wrong - I have yet to hear even ONE reason why the alternative is better. If you can't come up with at least a couple - you're not winning this debate.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The guideline makes the encyclopedia better by standardizing it; the guidelines also serve as neutral points of mediation when we try to resolve disputes such as this one. Support per WP:MOS-TMDekimasuよ! 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You are not the one determining who wins this debate. While I agree that plain majorities don't either in every case it looks pretty grim for you here: You not only disregard a huge number of pertinent sources, you also lied about them and other points repeatedley in the past and fell back on personal attacks when, I don't know, your arguments were countered or something. (Probably just plain IP-hate though.) Why do you still claim the moral high ground?
Here's your one reason: WP:ACCESS.
Some minor points:
You again refer to some alleged "many reasons" that you supposedly mentioned in the past and are undisputed. You tried to pull this stunt before, and it didn't fly then, why would it work now?
Be aware that Wikipedia is no longer an observer; truths are made here (and I'm not referring to Wikiality). You want to tell the world that it is ok if marketing departments introduce new rules for our language just to peddle their products. I disagree.
I'm sure fans will cope, as the article would use normal written English. (And kindly stop repeating that of course "People who know about the car already" would of course use MINI of course. I have already proven you wrong regarding this point; you are talking about a very, very small group of enthusiasts and those around them.) A qualifier would be necessary in any case, as the "classics" in the article demonstrate.
Yes, people would be confused if we'd make the article hard to understand just to illustrate your point. So let's not, ok?
I suggest you bring up the discussion about MOS:TM on its talk page. -- (talk)
Indeed. And if policy is what you need, have a look at Wikipedia:NAMING#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise: Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalisation (Invader Zim). This is policy. ProhibitOnions (T) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We have to be careful to not confuse the issues of making the entire encyclopedia better versus facilitating pocket groups who want to bend the rules for their particular pet projects, be it manga, automobiles, music, or the company they work for, etc. By holding all articles to the same style guidelines, Wikipedia and its editors are saying that a unified presentation format is the best for the encyclopedia as a whole. Sometimes, there are exceptions which lead to the expansion of the guidelines; but, the guidelines won't change as a result of a series of missives on one or two article pages. The place to discuss the change of guidelines is the guideline page. The place to discuss whether or not a particular article, like MINI (BMW) adheres to those guidelines is the article's talk page. Neier (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you accept standard English spelling as the base guideline, then MOS:TM is already the exception. The community acknowledges that trademarks demand special consideration, considered them and decided to keep standard English spelling. So, any attempt to except from the exception might belong here, but I couldn't see anything in Steve's presentation pointing in that direction. He just wants to ignore WP:MOS. -- (talk)


My argument tree wasn't very popular, so I'll try again with words.

The article currently violates MOS:TM. In SteveBaker's opinion, MOS:TM should be disregarded in this case, because the alternative is universally used. I disagree for the following reason:

  • SteveBaker's reason to make the distinction at all, namely to tell apart modern and classic Mini, has no basis, as evidenced by the necessity of using "classic" to differentiate in the article itself.
  • SteveBaker repeatedly claimed that a consensus was reached regarding MINI. I repeatedly asked him to point out the consensus and was ignored. I don't believe such consensus exists.
  • SteveBaker's sources are partly against policy, partly support my view. What remains is not notable enough for articles in Wikipedia.
  • On the other hand, I checked all notable automobile magazines, a number of well-known newspapers and assorted other sources. The grand total is 24:2 in favor of Mini.
  • MOS:TM was created for exactly this situation. SteveBaker gave no reasons why MINI should be considered special.
  • During the discussion, SteveBaker used personal attacks, improper block threats, incivility and made repeated false statements. This in itself does not prove that he is wrong, but it kind of reflects poorly on whatever point he had.

Is there any reason to protract this any longer? -- (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Violation of this article's copyright

I noticed that the website appears to be currently infringing the GFDL by including text copied verbatim from this article, without complying with the conditions laid down in the GFDL. The offending page is here; compare the article lead to the item "About Mini Cooper (selected by Hybrid Technologies)" about halfway down the page. The page claims copyright ownership for Hybrid Technologies.

As I've never edited this article (so my personal copyright has not been infringed in addition to the GFDL infringement), contacting the website might be best coming from one of the article editors... if anyone wants to step up ;) A template letter can be found here, which can be e-mailed to the site (contact details and a contact form are on the site here). The template letter will need to be amended with the specific details for this article. Wikipedia's legal position is laid out here.

If you need any help or advice, just drop me a note! I'm happy to contact them myself if need be, but I've found such things are more effective coming from the actual editors that wrote the copied material. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed complaints to them on two occasions now - with no response. Can anyone recall the WP: page where they collect these kinds of violations? SteveBaker (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Boot vs trunk

Reverted to the Br Eng use of "boot" as in the rest of the article. "Trunk" is never used in Br Eng for the luggage compartment of a car. WP:MOS advises consistency of national language variety within an article, and using the appropriate national language variety for country-specific subject matter. -- Karenjc 19:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1.4 Toyota Diesel

As the 'Mini One D' is only a rumor and it hasnt even been comfirmed, let alone put in production, I have removed the 1.4 Toyota Diesel from the list of engines found in the R56. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

US Availibility

Might want to note how US differs from European minis. For example, there is no US mini with the regerative braking or 'dynamic efficiency' features mentioned in the article. (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

MkII (R56) Twice

In the article at the moment there are two sections going on about the R56, one in the Models section and a dedicated bit further down the page. //\\ AirbusA346 //\\ (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

MINI to replace Rover 100 and 200?

The Mini was designed and engineered to replace the long running Rover 100 and the larger Rover 200, both deemed unsuitable for
the modern world automobile market. The Mini was supposed to replace low-end models of the 200 and high-end models of the 100 with
a Rover 35 replacing high end 200s and low end 400s. After the divestment of MG Rover, the Mini was instead marketed as a small 
yet desirable city car rather than a mainstream replacement of the 100 and 200.

see Overview

In my opinion this is a fairy tale. When the first intentions to develope a successor of the traditional Mini came up in 1993 there were 3 reasons: The safety standards of the traditional Mini were antiquated, new antipollution standards coulndn´t be reached and the economy of the production process was too low. It was the intention to develope a modern successor of the Mini and the Rover 100 (but not 200). After BMW had taken over Rover in 1994 there was a contention between BMW´s senior designer Frank Stephenson and Rover´s chief designer Geoff Upex. Stephenson and BMW preferred a sporty lifestyle car while Upex preferred an economy car with much space on a small base. In 1995 Stephenson and his concept prevailed and the development began. That means that

The Mini was designed and engineered to replace the long running Rover 100 and the larger Rover 200 

is definitely wrong. It was designed and engineered to be a lifestyle product. Even if Rover had enforced the concept of an economy car, the MINI would not have been built as a Rover 200 successor. I think either someone adds a citation or this section should be deleted. -- (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clubman Section

In section 3.2 "Mini Clubman" the opening sentence is some what misleading to the general public or some one not in the know. It reads as follows:

"The Mini Clubman is a separate model available in Clubman, S, and D variations."

The double mention of the word Clubman is misleading & I would propose changing it to the following"

"The Mini Clubman is a separate model available in Cooper, Cooper S, and Cooper D variations & uses the same engines as the hatchback models."

I would also propose adding the following information - "The Clubman models are identical up to the B-Pillar to the hatchback models, & although the car is longer the suspension set up at the back shares many of the same designs features." (however I'm not sure where to add it to)

As I'm new to Wiki, I would appreciate any comments/help on this, I guess if no one object I will add this info shortly.

Andrey Magiy (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits seem entirely appropriate. Generally, you can just go ahead and make non-controversial edits like this without asking. What we really need here is some references to back up what we're saying. If there is a magazine article or a car review that says that the Clubman is the same as the hatch as far as the B pillar then putting in a reference to that article would be a very good thing. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

I will make the modification to the article, however I will struggle to find a relevant link to a magazine feature or anything like that as this info pretty much come from real world knowledge. I own a Gen I (thats how I choose to refer to them) Cooper S, Gen 2 Cooper S & a Cooper D Clubman. I also work with the cars Mon-Fri & know the actual constructions pretty well. Hence all my knowledge is first hand. I've still yet to read all the rules & regulations on editing & etc. regarding the first hand knowledge. Andrey Magiy (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mini Cabrio or Mini Convertible?

Google gives "Mini Cabrio" four times more results then "Mini Convertible". The international website uses "Mini Cabrio". If I'm not mistaken, Mini Convertible is used only in the United States and the English-speaking part of Canada. How about switching names? --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

MINI (as proper article name)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move per WP:MOSTM. JPG-GR (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize there is an archived discussion of renaming this article above, but must chime in here (in the midst of editing an article that links to this page) that the decision was collosally wrong.

The firm is "MINI". Its product is the "MINI". Its predecessor was a "Mini". Conflating the two as one and misleading readers is just simply wrong. Please re-open the discussion so that the article may be appropriately renamed and the convention MINI used throughout with consistency. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Gilling (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I believe you. MINI is the new brand not Mini even though some people say Mini. Thomas Gilling (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The manual of style advises to "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'", and gives the examples: REALTOR®, TIME and KISS should be avoided, and instead articles should use Realtor, Time and Kiss. This is also the case with "MINI". Since it's not an acronym, the correct way to spell it in articles is "Mini". Jafeluv (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes - but "Break all rules"...when it makes the encyclopedia better...which this undoubtedly would. SteveBaker (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The MOS is very clear on this. We do not do odd naming just because the trademark owner wants us to. TJ Spyke 04:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:TM (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose since it is not an acronym. --DAJF (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support changing the name back to 'MINI (BMW)' because truly, that does the best service to our readers - reduces confusion and follows the way almost every writes the name. However, we've been through this before - fought a long and hard battle and lost in the face of a strong consensus. So we have to let this particular sleeping dog lie. If you REALLY want to do something about this - you need to start off at the WP:MOS discussion pages pushing for a change in the rules (which, IMHO, are indeed stupid). Good luck with that! Sorry. SteveBaker (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Changing it to MINI isn't just correcting it to the unusual capitalization used by BMW, so don't use the acronym guideline as an excuse to oppose it. It is capitalized for a reason; it distinguishes the brand from BMC's Mini brand. "Mini (BMW)" should be a redirect page to "MINI (BMW)" or preferably, to just "MINI" since the article for BMC's Mini is just "Mini", not "Mini (BMC)". This should be a no-brainer. Consistency and clarity should be valued over acronym guideline obsession. Parenthetical article names hurt readability far more than non-standard capitalization. I haven't read the acronym guideline recently, but I'm guessing that even it says something about reasonable and logical exceptions. (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
    • For those insisting that "guidelines are just guidelines", here's what official Wikipedia policy states: "Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim), except where non-standard capitalization is selected as one of the many possible methods of disambiguation." There you go. So policy clearly allows an exception if it's decided that Mini vs. MINI is a better method for distinguishing the two topics than Mini vs. Mini (BMW). In my opinion the latter is clearer (the reader doesn't have to know about how the company prefers to capitalize the name), especially since a lot of reliable sources write "Mini" instead of "MINI", but I don't find the other option unreasonable, either. Jafeluv (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Specialized ordering capability

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the article that addresses the way a buyer can order, track and customize the cars on a level heretofore not seen? This might be a sub-section of the marketing section, etc. but isn't this one of the more salient aspects of the car? 842U (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Seperate page for each Mini model

There should be a sepereate page for each Mini model. All info shouldn't be cramped up into one page. Most if not all of car articles have the models listed on seperate pages. So why not MINI? I don't understand. The article about MINI (BMW) should give just brief information about each model and companys' financial info etc. etc. (Wiki id2 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

  • Fully agree. With the Countryman, soon the Paceman and the mini-MINI it must be clear that MINI is now a brand and not a model. Hektor (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed, there is more than enough content and sources to justify break-out articles for each model in the range.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
this article is confusing the marque with the products. I would support model specific pages and leave this article to tell the marketing story and brand development story. This would be similar to other car articles. Warren Whyte (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's now time to separate MINI (the car company) from MINI (the actual car). However, this "Mini (marque)" move was a stupid one - and I think we should reverse it. The problem is that the "marque" with the name "Mini" refers to two very different car lines - the original 'classic' Mini and the modern MINI. Since Wikipedia rules won't let us capitalize the latter in article titles (and perhaps not elsewhere either) - we need a better way to separate the two. The previous arrangement where "Mini" was the classic Mini marque and "Mini (BMW)" the modern one made it clear which we were talking about. An article called "Mini (marque)" has to discuss both - and that's just silly. So I would arrange things as follows:
  • Mini - unchanged. It ain't broke - so let's not fix it.
  • Mk I Mini - I'm not sure we even need this article - it duplicates a lot from Mini and is way too detailed in areas where it does not.
  • Mini (BMW) - the car company.
  • Then have separate articles about the various modern MINI cars - splitting them apart as needed to keep each article to a fairly sane length.
  • Mini (marque) - should be a short article describing the history of the marque itself, how it started, how it transitioned to BMW and how it continues to be used.
SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A sensible start, and generally makes sense, but I wonder why the marque cannot be discussed in the main company article (. I would suggest a variation to Steve's: (1) Mini (marque) describing the brand and introduces its products, locations etc and its "ownership by BMW" (BMW states of course that 'MINI is a BMW Group brand')[1] and (2) The different ranges of cars. Leaving the historic Minis makes sense, despite the odd naming of Mk1 Mini. Warren Whyte (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there is a Mini company as such, isn't it just a marque of BMW now. But I support the idea of one root article, Mini (marque) sounds good, as an overview of the marque and its history since its beginnings with the classic Mini, leaving the current Mini article more or less as it is now, and with new articles covering each of the major divisions of the BMW Mini model lines. -- de Facto (talk). 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start with the Mini Countryman as it is very much a new model. The main Mini Hatch/Convertible/Clubman range will definitely benefit from a new model page, but Mini have not made it easy to know what to call it. Why is the term 'Hardtop' used in the article? I have never heard that term used by Mini to describe the hatchback model. Warren Whyte (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A good start, yes. I think 'Hardtop' is what the 'Hatch' is called in the U.S. The article name though is awkward yes, because before the other variations were launched it was simply called 'MINI'. -- de Facto (talk). 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
A few comments on my move of this article to Mini (marque) from Mini (BMW). The title Mini (BMW) was in my view misleading because it incorrectly suggested (i) that BMW somehow created the Mini marque (the exact date at which the Mini marque was born is slightly unclear but I am happy to go with the date 1969 stated in the Mini article); (ii) that BMW is somehow part of the name of the marque; and (iii) that Mini is a separate company or even an operating division of BMW. A Mini (BMW) article is in my view very much the wrong approach, either for this article or a separate article running parallel to this as a marque article. Were BMW to establish a separate Mini division with its own registered company, HQ, management, R&D, factories etc then my view on this may change, although I would still feel an article on the marque to be essential.
I think that a lot of the complications with this article have arisen from the fact that it began as an article for one specific car - the Mini Hardtop (2001-2006), which the media at the time often incorrectly called the 'BMW Mini' - and then expanded as the range grew and was updated. In my view there should be a separate article for each model in the range, and this article should have just a brief description of each model and a link to those break out articles, similar to other marque articles. That is already becoming the case for the latest models but there remains excessive coverage of models such as the Mini Hardtop (2001-2006), which do not have yet their articles (but in my view should). Rangoon11 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you Rangoon11. The title of this article, I think, is appropriate. The article title that needs a little consideration is the one for the article about the first (BMW) MINI Hatchback (2001-2006). -- de Facto (talk). 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, naming the Hatch/Hardtop (2001-2006) is complicated because for much of its production life it was simply called MINI (with One, Cooper etc added to denote trim level/engine) and the Hardtop/Hatch designation was only added later as other models were launched and some differentiation was required. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ BMW Group Report 2009