Jump to content

Talk:Mini (marque)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Vote

So now I talk to DISCUSS, not to ARGUE!, so that we can make the mini subject the best it can be! I've now read a little bit more in this argument and it seems at some point Rangoon and Dennis Bratland came to an agreement, which I also agree with; that an article "Mini/Mini (Marque)" should encompass the entire history the mini 1959 - present, and that to disambiguate the modern mini in it's own article it should be referred to as something else, be it BMW or whatever. And then Mr Choppers proposes along the same lines and Type 932 agrees, yet we sill have this massive war and messy article.

(My 2 cents) I believe the comment Dennis Bratland made about having the custom info/navbox and category would be a greet way to clearly and correctly organise the mini subject, allowing marks, owners, variants etc to be displayed efficiently without confusion.

So the main article:

  • "Mini or Mini (Marque)" Full history of the brand. If 'Marque' is a all used, as it is motor industry term for 'brand', it makes sense for an article titled so to be the history of this subject. The main article would include;
    • Inception
    • 1959 - 1966: BMC Years
    • Cooper & Variants
    • 1966 - 1968: BMH Years
    • 1968 - 1975: BLMC Years
    • 1975 - 1986: Leyland Years
    • 1986 - 2001: Rover Years
    • 2001 - Present: BMW Years (Whether the BMW Mini is British or German, a company or not, is irrelevant, it is still a mini.)

To prevent the main article from becoming too long, more in depth articles with full product ranges created. eg;

  • "Mini ADO15:Mark I"
  • "Mini Cooper"
  • "Mini Variants" (Estate, Van, Pick-up, Elf & Hornet, Beach Car, Moke).
  • "Mini International" (South Afirca, Spain, Italy, Australia, South America's)
  • "Mini ADO15:Mark II"
  • "Mini ADO20:Mark III, IV & Clubman"
  • "Mini ADO20:Mark V - VII"
  • "Mini R"

This seems the logical way to organise the category and subject and keep things simple and the point of is to avoid confusion and clarify information, not create it with two duplicating articles. The entire history of mini can be on one page and the specifics of models/brands each get their own article. As with any article on wiki, when a subject is expanded, the basics are mentioned on the main article page and where people want to read further they can go to the extended article. So in this case the main article, "Marque", informs on the history and developments work in a time line of events from creation to modern ownership linking to specific articles on key areas; "Mark I". So is this not what we're all trying to get at?Yellowxander (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


Rather than listing endless information arguing each way, to find a general consensus lets have an informal VOTE! List your name below...

I agree with improving the article into a structured category with "Mini or Mini (Marque)" supplying the full history of mini inception to present (BMC to BMW), and each 'Mark/Generation' to have it's own expanded article, eg "Mini Mark I" and "Mini (BMW)" which doesn't duplicate the entire history, only expand further into that specific subject:

  1. Yellowxander (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Agree. This article should be a simple overview that links to each generation (the Rover and BMW eras counting as the latest generations). I would not call the overview article 'Mini (marque)' because most people think of the Mini as a single vehicle (whether from Morris, BL, Rover or BMW) that happens to have a few variations (Cooper, Countryman, etc) spread over a number of generations - just like many other long lived vehicle lines. I suggest the split be along the same lines as Toyota Corolla.  Stepho  talk  06:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. I support the broad proposal here and in my view this article should be renamed simply 'Mini'. Yes it is a very good idea to create separate articles for the variants which were based on/inspired by the original Mini. This is the approach which is now being followed for post-2001 Mini vehicles, with each production model having a dedicated article, and is the general approach for car articles in WP.

In terms of the precise layout and structure of this article, I think that we should park that discussion for the present or this discussion will lose focus (personally I think that the 'History' section should be expanded and the 'Engine summary' should go - as that content belongs in each model article). In terms of the current 'Mini' article, the content should primarily go to specific model articles. For example the whole section 'Design and development' belongs in 'Mini (Mark I)', as does most of the section 'Mark I Mini: 1959–1967'. 'Mini Cooper' is almost certainly an independently notable topic on which coverage could be greatly expanded and for which a standalone article makes sense. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


I disagree and think nothing should change:


I disagree and think something should change:

  1. -->Typ932 T·C 13:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC) : No support, when Mini was launched its was just a car model of certain brand, not own marque (Morris Mini-Minor,Austin 850 and Morris 850 etc.), my suggestion is to have just two articles old Mini and BMW Mini as separate articles, if too long links to certain models. There is no need for marque page -->Typ932 T·C 13:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Typ932's solution. Two main articles: the current "Mini" article, and "Mini Hatch" (current name) or "Mini (since 2001)" (more globally acceptable name/more correct name). To counter the size problems, both articles would use the summary style encouraged by Wikipedia. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. I agree with Typ932's solution. Old Mini and BMW Mini as separate articles and no duplicated history.--IIIraute (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. I would support this also, as long as the history isn't duplicated amongst both articles, as that seems to be the main issue. A brief summary, say a paragraph, to end the classic article and summarise the history/development of the new mini would suffice I should think. The names best suited to fit can be agreed upon once we come to a consensusYellowxander (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The article names are a key part of the discussion, as was clear from the lengthy discussion which occurred a couple of months' ago and is shown above. It is very much a key point that the 'Mini' article title is as applicable to post-2001 as pre. There also seems to be a failure amongst some of the new participants in this disucssion to grasp that the Mini marque is an inherently highly notable topic for a WP article. If they don't think it is then they should try to AfD this article. Trying to delete it through a POV split is not acceptable.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes they are key, but the point of this specific discussion is not what to name the articles.Yellowxander (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Support widespread change. Some facts that I think are important here:
    1. Both articles are gigantic and could use either drastic pruning or splitting up.
    2. Since pruning is unlikely to be popular, the desire to split things up means that we can contemplate anywhere between three or four - up to perhaps a dozen articles - some of a "summary" nature and others conveying an almost unwarranted amount of fine detail that most readers won't want.
    3. The "classic" Mini is clearly a different beast than the modern MINI. The vehicles are very different - and the manufacturer of the latter has never made any of the former. People looking for information about the modern MINI won't want to see vast amounts of information about the classic - and vice-versa. This historical split (which I happen to have instigated) is very natural. We could add a summary-style article explaining the over-arching history that connects the two vehicles if needed.
    4. The distinction between the "marque", the manufacturer and the actual vehicle(s) has been largely unimportant until recently because the company only had one marque and only made one vehicle (with small varients). But BMW/MINI started making the larger MINI countryman and (arguably) the coupe...so now there is a new problem for our organizational skills. I think we truly do need an article about BMW/MINI (the company) and quite separate articles at least about the countryman and the regular MINI...don't know about the coupe - I could swing either way on that one.
    5. Don't forget Mini Moke - which resulted from an earlier split from Mini.
    6. This is a difficult re-org - and it doesn't have to happen all in one go.
    7. The problem of distinguishing between MINI (the company) and MINI (the vehicle(s)) doesn't apply to the classic Mini. There was never a company with that name until BMW created it (which was after the classic Mini ceased production) - and we already have articles about the half dozen or so companies that manufactured the classic Mini. We also already peeled off the Mini Moke into a separate article. So the re-org that modern MINI needs so badly has already been taken care of for the classic Mini.
    So how do we approach this re-org? Do we need separate articles about (for example) the MINI ONE versus the MINI Cooper? I strongly suggest we put off that decision until we've pulled apart the present MINI article into something about the company and something about their main vehicle lines. We don't have to do this all in one bite.
    My suggestion is as follows:
    • PHASE I
      • Split the Mini (marque) article into one that is clearly about the company (eg like Ford or BMW) "Mini (company) and another about each of the major products it makes (the regular Mini (BMW) and the Mini Countryman would clearly represent two such articles - you might argue that the Mini Coupe is a third).
      • Since that split has already been done for the classic Mini article - let's leave that alone for now so that we can concentrate on fixing the modern MINI stuff. Since no more classic mini's are being made (well, essentially not) - that article shouldn't need to grow by much more anyway.
      • Consider writing a new article describing the history of "mini" - tying together the modern MINI with the classic and explaining the whole Rover/BMW/Nanjing fiasco.
    • PHASE II
      • Look at the articles we have left from phase I. Are any of them too long? If so, figure out the logical way to split them up.
      • Look at the Mini article and decide whether it needs splitting up at all.
      • Push hard to try to get the remaining articles back up to FA status.
    SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
A few quick points in reply. 1. There is no such thing as a 'Mini' company within BMW. The current manufacturer of Mini vehicles is BMW, which has its own article. 2. This article is not actually particularly long and well within guidelines. 3. The Mini marque is clearly a highly notable topic, and you acknowledge the need for an overarching Mini article, yet wish to break up this article - which covers just such a topic - and then create another one from scratch. That strikes me as wholly unproductive. 4. To split this article into two at 2001 is both a POV split, and factually misleading as the history of the 2001–2006 Mini Hatch began prior to BMW ownership.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, we have to be a little careful about the semantics here. I agree that MINI isn't technically a "company" - in the sense of British law - because it's not registered with a number under the Companies Act. MINI is a wholly owned subsidiary of BMW (UK) Ltd and BMW (UK) Manufacturing Ltd...which are most certainly both British "companies" - because their stocks are traded on the London Stock Exchange and they have their own "Companies Act" numbers (1378137 and 01213133). BMW (UK) Ltd also owns Rolls-Royce Motor Cars. The two BMW (UK) companies are in turn owned by BMW (UK) Holdings Ltd (another "company"), which is in turn owned by BMW AG - which is a German holding company.
However, MINI is technically a company under US law because it raises funds. But most importantly (per WP:COMMONNAME) MINI fulfills three of the dictionary definitions for the word "company" at Wiktionary:
  • A group of individuals with a common purpose
  • (law, business) An entity that manufactures or sells products (also known as goods), or provides services as a commercial venture. A corporation.
  • (business) Any business, without respect to incorporation.
But either way - that doesn't stop us having an article about "MINI (subsidiary of BMW)" or something like that. After all, we have Rolls-Royce Motor Cars - which is also not technically a "company" under UK law and occupies the exact same legal and ownership standing as MINI. Having an article about Rolls-Royce Motor Cars that is separate from the four articles about the Rolls-Royce cars that they have made since they were owned by BMW is precisely the model I see working here.
If you look at a MINI - look under the hood, inside the car, everywhere - you are very hard pressed to find a BMW logo or name anywhere on the car. Only a few parts that are shared between MINI and BMW vehicles are labelled like that. So talking about a "car made by BMW" in our article makes zero sense. It's a ridiculous way to describe things because it obfuscates rather than illuminating. We don't describe the Rolls-Royce Ghost as a "car made by BMW".
I do recognize the need for a rather short, summary-style overarching document describing the whole "mini/MINI" phenomenon - who owned what name and when, that kind of stuff. However, we need main documents for the present MINI organization (trying not to say "company" here) that is separate from the discussion of it's cars because we are rapidly growing so many car types that our readers will have a hard time finding what they want in a single article. Again, this follows the Rolls-Royce model of organization:
This is the structure I'd like to see for Mini and Mini (marque).
As for the business of the MINI starting out before 2001 - well, yes, there was some planning and such - but the actual vehicles didn't appear before then. There was minimal overlap between the classic Mini and the MINI - and conflating the two is confusing at best. They actually have almost zero in common aside from the name and a few "retro" style elements in the MINI.
SteveBaker (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Steve frankly much of your post is garbage. 1. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited is a company, as is clear from the WP article and from Companies House: [1]. 2. Mini is not a wholly owned subsidiary of either BMW (UK) Ltd or BMW (UK) Manufacturing Ltd because there is no Mini company. 3. If you want to create an article about BMW UK (which includes the Hams Hall engine factory and various other things) then I would support that. I will strongly oppose the creation of an article on an invented entity however, and will immediately AfD it. 4. What planet are you on if you think that either BMW (UK) Ltd or BMW (UK) Manufacturing Ltd are listed on the London Stock Exchange. That is pure garbage. Do a search on the London Stock Exchange website.
Much of the recent posts on here (not just Steve's) have been full of factual inaccuracies and incoherence. It is very frustrating having to engage in a discussion on such a basis, where individuals are stridently proposing ill considered changes which will be damaging and will present a misleading impression of reality.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
A few extra points: Minis are not assembled in the U.S., so what Mini company do you believe exists in the U.S. Do you have any evidence for its existence. It could conceivably be a BMW entity which offers Mini related financial services or owns dealerships (and even if so, that would have no connection to the Mini activities which take place in the UK, e.g. it would not employ the UK factory workers, own the Mini brand, own the factories etc).
Mini the marque was not invented by BMW in 2001. It was not invented by BMW at all. The marque has a continuous history, under various owners, and the current Mini range would not exist if the 1959 model had not been launched. BMW may perhaps have had some other small cars absent Mini, but they would not have been manufactured in the UK, would not be styled in the way that the Mini range is, would not have been marketed using a British theme, and would not be called Mini. Mini is a British marque. Period. Not a BMW creation, and not a German marque. That British marque is a highly notable topic for a WP article, and deserves a proper treatment just like every other automotive marque in WP. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"Mini the marque was not invented by BMW " Delete all after "invented". There's no "marque": it's a brand name, not (even now) a marque on its own. I'm with Type932, here. I do agree, tho, there should be split-offs on models (& the Riley Elf, frex, deserves its own page). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Fortunately WP works on third party sources, not the ill informed opinions of editors, and there are no shortage describing Mini as a marque, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Marque is just a motor term for brand right?Yellowxander (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)



Consensus

So we all actually agree that there should be two separate articles, a classic mini and a new mini. I've had a look at similar examples of the same situation as the mini;

  • With the Volkswagen Beetle this article covers only the classic Type 1 years and has no mention at the end of the article about the new beetle, just the italic disambiguation text at the top referring to Volkswagen New Beetle. Similarlary the new article makes no mention to the history of the name beetle, just the same italic disambiguation text at the top referring to the predecessor.
  • The Fiat 500 does exactly the same as the beetle, neither the classic article or the newer model Fiat 500 (2007) article mention each other in terms of future or history other than the italic disambiguation text at the top.

Existing articles on mini's:

So taking on board similar articles and what we all agree, the duplicated classic history ought to be removed from "Mini (Marque)". We can see here that the new mini has no lead article of it's own, just the majority content of "Mini (Marque)", but having removed the duplicated classic history from said page would leave the article to become the lead article for the new mini.

So concluding and to confirm, (inputs of whether new mini is its own company or not, or what name to use for the article aside) are we all agreed at having a 'classic mini' article with no new mini info and a 'new mini' article with no classic mini history?..

  1. is happy with that specific conclusionYellowxander (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support. Technically "MINI" isn't a company under British law. However, it is technically a company under US law because it raises funds - and it certainly fulfills three of the dictionary definitions for "company" at Wiktionary:
    • A group of individuals with a common purpose
    • (law, business) An entity that manufactures or sells products (also known as goods), or provides services as a commercial venture. A corporation.
    • (business) Any business, without respect to incorporation. SteveBaker

No we absolutely do not have consensus for a split of this article, and this discussion in no way can be seen to be either a vote, or of any greater weight than the recent, far longer and more detailed discussion on this topic. I am truly puzzled at the argument that Mini is a company under U.S. law. It is not. Can any evidence be provided which demonstrates that a Mini company is registered in the U.S.92.24.182.183 (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

N.B. above IP post was mine - thought I had logged in, wasn't trying to have a second bite!Rangoon11 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Should also add, the analogies drawn above with the VW Beetle and the Fiat 500 are wholly wrong, neither is a marque with a range of products. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Voting is the only way to determine what we should do, I think we have enough conversation about this case. -->Typ932 T·C 13:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I didn't understand what the point of the "Marque" article was about or what it meant, so came to the chat and saw all this, woah! Could see nothing was being done and looked like going in circles so that's why I thought about the vote. I'm going on holiday now, will be interesting to see what has developed next week! onwards and upwards!Yellowxander (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, my examples of the beetle and 500 are are to compare similar articles where there is a classic model and a new style model. What's more is that these models are still made by the same manufacturers and there's no change in branding - yet they still have different pages. Whether MINI is a company or not is not the issue right now, that is something for the 'new mini' article.
Is there any other similar products anyone else can think of to compare and relate to?Yellowxander (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
We do have separate articles for what you deem "new" and old. We have Mini (Mark I) and Mini Hatch and numerous other product articles.
For me a better analogy would be Land Rover, which began as a single model, developed into a marque and then a range of vehicles, and has had multiple owners in its history.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
"Mini (Hatch)" doesn't cover clubman and coupé, so would not be an example of a lead article for the new mini.Yellowxander (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The Land Rover is a good article! What I do see is that the model officially became a company.Yellowxander (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
What we don't have is articles such as 'Land Rover under British Aerospace ownership', 'Land Rover under Ford ownership', 'Land Rover under BMW ownership', 'Land Rover under Tata ownership'. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that concerns me about this...

...is the little matter of this guideline: WP:DEM and its implications: WP:VOTE. Please read and understand these before applying anything that comes out of thie "vote".

File:MiniBrochure2012.JPG
Mini Hatch UK 2012 brochure

On a related matter, I will get back to this once I read the articles. I have just discovered the article Mini Hatch. This is the very very first time I have ever heard this term used to describe the BMW Mini, and I fear the term is used for political correctness rather than actual usage.Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mini Hatch is actually the name used by the manufacturer so I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have never encountered that name in any advertisement or magazine article, nor have I seen it on any badge on the actual car. It's always been just MINI with the term "One" or "Cooper" somewhere on the back of the car. Oddly enough, the Countryman doesn't seem to have a Countryman badge on it either; I even saw a Countryman on display at a dealer show with a "Cooper" badge on it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk)
Mini Hatch (US Mini Hardtop) is the official name for the 3-door mini. Check out the official Mini website, or pick up a hard copy brochure; one of which sits right next to me as I type it and it clearly says: "Mini Hatch, Mini Convertible, Mini Clubman". Warren (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair point on the democracy and polling! In terms of finding consensus that's exactly what I am trying to establish, as no one seems to have gotten anywhere. Onwards and forward people! =) Yellowxander (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What a mess

Okay, I find myself somewhat in agreement with Yellowxander's original proposal, excepting maybe the proliferation of subarticles. All the talk of legal notions of what makes a brand seems fairly useless, the main question to me is: what does the word "Mini" mean to the average Wikipedia user? As far as I can tell, "Mini" includes all of the various Minis from the ADO15 until today's Mini Roadster. I don't like this, but I am willing to admit it. The article Mini (marque) is an extremely artificial creation, with tons of overlapping material from all other Mini pages - this is an article which would belong much better within a Mini umbrella article, including 1959-1969 material. All of the content on the various generations could then be split off into Mini (ADO15), Mini Hatch, and so forth. As for the questions of those future subdivisions (e.g., does Mini Cooper get its own article? Mini Van?) I suggest leaving those discussions out entirely, until a basic structure has been agreed upon.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Only way to get rid of this mess is that voting, this wont get any better by talking -->Typ932 T·C 06:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Mini Cooper is such a slam dunk for notability that I'm very tempted to start it off now, but I'll wait until we have more clarity here. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with a !vote is that we need a CLEAR statement of two (or at most three) easily comprehensible proposals. Right now, I see as many proposals as there are editors contributing to the debate - and we'll end up with 20 fairly similar proposals, each of which will get one vote and one horribly radical proposal that'll get two. "Splitting the vote" becomes a big issue. How about we start off by enumerating the options - hopefully we can all contribute to that list without disagreement...you can agree that something that you don't want is, none the less, an "option". When we have that list of options clearly spelled out - and everyone can agree that they cover all of the reasonable ways forward - we can perhaps reduce the size of the list with straw polls and compromises between very similar proposals. When we have the list pared down to two or three quite different choices - THEN we can have that !vote. FWIW, I've found with past projects that the act of spelling out those options is often enough to gain consensus. By leaving your mind open to all of the possibilities (even if you don't agree with them) during the "enumeration of options" phase, you can often get an insight in to what the opposing suggestions actually are and discover that they aren't so terrible after all. SteveBaker (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What are the options?

Per my previous post, let's list the options for moving forward. What I'd like to see below is a simply stated set of proposals for what articles we should end up with - and a one-sentence description of what each proposed article would contain. If you don't see the split that you want in the set of ==== Option X ==== descriptions below, then add one of your own in the same format.

I don't want to see any debate as to their relative merits at this stage. Let's wind up with a set of numbered options - then when we've done that, people can start to explain why "Option A" is better than "Option B" - and why "Option C" is horrible. Let's leave the actual titles of the articles open for debate in the future when we've decided how this large corpus of material should be organized. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Option A

  1. An article that covers the entire topic of Classic Mini/Mini Moke/MINI vehicles/MINI factory/MINI division-of-BMW in summary form.
  2. An article about the entire range of classic Minis in summary-form - along with stuff about the complicated company history, Alec Issigonis, the cultural impact of the classic Mini, etc.
  3. Articles about each of the classic Mini marks and variants - split up as needed - and after more debate on the Mini talk page.
  4. An article about the MINI organization/company/division-of-BMW/whatever - including a summary list of their products.
  5. Articles about each of the distinct main products of that organization - (eg the modern "MINI" hatchback, the "MINI Coupe", the "MINI Countryman", etc) - divided after more debate on this talk page.

Option B

  1. An article (Mini) which covers the entire topic of Classic Mini/Mini Moke/MINI vehicles/MINI factory/MINI division-of-BMW in summary form.
  2. Various articles about each of the classic Mini marks and variants and about all of the BMW Minis - organized as needed after further debate.

My proposal does away with overlapping articles for the Classic Mini and BMW Mini, instead incorporating such content into Mini. Mini (marque) will be turned into a redirect. Detailed content will go into separate articles for each iterations, the organization of which is to be left for later.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

AGREE Sounds good to me =)Yellowxander (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, two editors agreeing on one opinion! We are moving forward, I think! I truly welcome any further suggestions which may help lead to a consensus.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
haha, well i also like option a too, but option b looks like a good starting point into organizing the subject and then things can be developed from there. also im running on about 20 hours sleep over the last week so simple works well right now! lolYellowxander (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to support Option B. I believe the "overlapping" article is critical to the over-arching content of the Mini name, and then all the specific individual models can retain their own specific pages, or get new ones where editors think it suits. Warren (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Support - per proposer. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - per proposer. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Option C

??? (I hope we don't run out of letters...)

Photo Captioned 'A 2002 Mini One Hatch'

In the section entitled 'Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2001 to 2006)' there is a picture which has been captioned 'a 2002 Mini One Hatch'. I clicked on the link to the picture's own page, where I did not notice any reference to 2002.

The bumper style is that of the refreshed (very slightly face-lifted with new gearbox) 1st generation hatch, which I am sure was introduced in 2004. It cannot therefore be a 2002 Mini One hatch. Perhaps someone would like to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.126.130 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015

Source: "10 Cars You’d Be Foolish to Buy" by Consumer Reports, April 2, 2015 (please consider adding part of the info below, probably just something like "Consumer Reports, April 2, 2015 stated "...the Mini Cooper S has the worst history among all cars we have tracked over the past decade.""

Worst used car: Mini Cooper S

When it comes to choosing a used car, you can put the odds on your side by choosing a model that performed well when new and has a great reliability track record. Of course, reliability hiccups can happen with any used car, but the Mini Cooper S has the worst history among all cars we have tracked over the past decade.Italic text Sure, the car is cute and delightfully entertaining, but year after year, the likelihood of having a problem that requires a repair is heartbreaking. And among the 17 trouble spots we track, engine major, engine minor, engine cooling, fuel system, body integrity, and body hardware have issues at an alarming rate. Although Consumer Reports often recommends skipping an extended warranty, the Mini Cooper S is a case where the investment would be a good hedge against potential problems. Joining the Mini Cooper S as among the worst used cars are the Chevrolet Cruze 1.4T and Ford Fiesta—although these models have fewer model years to anchor their position among the worst of the worst. 96.247.224.140 (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 08:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Need a section for Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2014 to present)

There is a section in the article for Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2007 to 2013) but there is not one for (2014 to present). It looks like it should come right after the Mini Paceman (2013 to present) section. Jmvannoy (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mini (marque). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

MINI -> Mini

Someone should remove the inconsistent use of "MINI" and change it to MOS-conforming "Mini".-217.248.2.44 (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mini (marque). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about Article Division

Why is this article and Mini not simply fused, like with many, many other articles about car lines (eg. Volkswagen Golf)? Just to point out one problem, the original Mini is also just a marque (of the British Motor Corporation)-217.248.60.193 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they are totally different cars that share nothing except a similar style. However, I do think the article should be renamed "Mini (BMW)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.159.105 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The logo needs updating and changing, as MINI sites, have the logo on the website.

Thoughts?

--Hosgeorges! 18:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dakar Rally

Mini won the Dakar Rally four times from 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.230 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the MINI logo should be updated on this page to match the new one on branding and website:

https://www.mini.co.uk/en_GB/home.html --Hosgeorges! 18:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2017

The engine specs need to be updated. In the 2014 model year there was a 3 cylinder engine added as well as a 2.0 liter 4 cylinder. 73.14.128.203 (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 14:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mini (marque). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Name of this article: Mini, Mini (BMW), Mini (marque)

I have been recently concerned on the title of this page. The page is called "Mini (marque)", but most websites on the Internet and even the company itself calls it "MINI", with capital letters, if you search MINI on Google, many websites say the name with caps. I think we should change this name to "MINI (marque)" instead. I believe this should be changed to represent what the company is really called.

Prodigy55 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:TMRULES----217.248.33.213 (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In the long run the name of the article should be Mini. See Mini (1959–2000). See Mini (disambiguation).--Tim Stamper (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The new Mini takes its name from the original Mini, which will be more important for the foreseeable future at least. I do agree that "Mini (BMW)" is a better name than "Mini (marque)".  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
From the books I've read about Mini, and the media I have seen, the terms classic Mini and new Mini are the common names. Nobody says, "today I saw a Mini (1959–2000)". They say "today I saw a classic Mini. It was parked right next to a new Mini." Sometimes you hear BMW Mini rather than new Mini, but it's probably one or the other. Nobody says "Mini (BMW)" or "Mini (marque)". This stilted phrasing is not the normal way people talk or write. We have a policy of using common names, and writing articles in plain English.

I've only read a few short books about Mini and kept up with major magazine and news articles about them, and haven't exhaustively researched the topic. It could be that new Mini and classic Mini aren't the most common terms, especially taking into account UK media I haven't covered as much. Whatever the common terms are, we are capable of determining that based on our sources, and we can find a consensus on that. But we have to get away from trying to find the most precise, legalistic, and technical names for articles, and instead stick with the policy we are supposed to follow: Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In the long run, as Keynes (I think it was he, tho maybe someone else got in first) pointed out, we are all dead, but right now there's no overwhelming reason either way to assert that your averagely well informed and interested wiki reader will find the Issigonis Mini or the BMW retro-Mini the more significant. You could no doubt do a count to see which of the two entries gets more hits (though that is partly a function of the relative googlability of the article names). It is not impossible that in another couple of decades one or other of the two designs will be long forgotten. (Though that would be a tad sad.) But right now it's impossible to know which.
Meanwhile "Mini (1959–2000)" and "Mini (2001-date)" do the biz. "Mini (BMW)" works as an alternative to the second of those two, but right now someone has incorporated the earlier model with the later under this single composite/summary entry which is plain confusing aka wrong aka weird to a fault. Happy Sunday. Charles01 (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Mini (1959–2000)--Tim Stamper (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I completely disagree that this article should be renamed "Mini", as that name belongs to the article covering the 1959-2000 Mini. However, as this article covers the whole history of the Mini marque from 1959 to present, I also think it is inappropriate to have BMW in its name. For me, the best name for this article is "Mini (marque)", "Mini" per WP:COMMONNAME, with "(marque)" added to disambiguate it from the "Mini" article. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
"Mini became a marque in its own right in 1969." Introduction of the article. I would prefer Mini (BMW).--Tim Stamper (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Tim Stamper: why do you prefer to add BMW, when most of the marque's history had nothing to do with BMW? BMW's history and their purchase and involvement with Rover and the Mini marques is in the BMW article. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Probably the article should begin with this section. For the other content, article Mini. One article for the old models, one article for the new models.--Tim Stamper (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
This discussion is about the title of the current article - do you now agree that, if the content stays as it is, it is inappropriate for the name to have "BMW" in it? We need to start a new section if we are to discuss whether we should split this article by ownership of the marque. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Rename the article to Mini (marque). Can you use a infobox to communicate that one article for the old models and one article for the new models would make sense in the long run? I do not want to make a decision.--Tim Stamper (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Jeep was originally a public-private project leading to a vehicle designed by Bantam, but actually produced by Ford and Willys, then by Kaiser-Willys, then things get even more complicated with non-US production and changes in ownership, leading up to the whirling shifts at AMC, Chrysler, Daimler, then Fiat. Identifying marque and the company and the company division are a byzantine mess. The 2017 Jeep Wrangler has as little in common with he CJ3A as the 2017 Mini Cooper does with the original Mini. But people know what "Jeep" refers to. The subject of Jeep, the Jeep topic, is coherent and recognizable. If you show readers this article Jeep, they aren't baffled by it. The topic begins with Bantam and we trace its history through many twists and turns. There are sub-articles and related articles like American Bantam or American Motors. We can have a perfectly good article simply called Mini for the same reason we can have a perfectly good article called Jeep. It's where you start when you want an encyclopedia overview of the topic. Wikipedia is not the Bloomberg stock database, where you only care about which corporate entity is which. Articles aren't defined by brands or corporate divisions or companies. They're defined by topic, and the topic is Mini.

This situation with a brand changing hands and shifting parent companies isn't unique. Jeep and Mini are no different than Kodak or IBM or AT&T. Anything that has been around for a few decades is going to be just the same. Make the main article Mini and spawn sub-topics on the classic Mini or the new Mini or Rover Mini or what have you based on what content we have. We overthink this stuff way too much. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: a similar discussion is also in progress at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#"History is Bunk!" -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It was not intelligent to change the article`s name without a discussion. Sometimes a problem is complex and in this sense problematic. Have a nice day!--Tim Stamper (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC) I moved page Mini (BMW) to Mini (marque) over redirect.--Tim Stamper (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2017

In 1963, the original British Mini was featured in the gold-heist film The Italian Job (released in 1969) starring Michael Caine and Noël Coward.[87] In 2003, the new MINI Cooper was shown in a remake of The Italian Job. One Chilli Red MINI was a Cooper S Hatch R53, the Electric Blue MINI was a Cooper Hatch R53, and the Pepper White MINI was also a Cooper Hatch R53. In 1969, the original British Mini was featured in the gold-heist film The Italian Job starring Michael Caine and Noël Coward.[87] In 2003, the new MINI Cooper was shown in a remake of The Italian Job. One Chilli Red MINI was a Cooper S Hatch R53, the Electric Blue MINI was a Cooper Hatch R53, and the Pepper White MINI was also a Cooper Hatch R53. MacDevilScot (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Italian job film was released in 1969 not 1963. That must be changed. 90.218.233.68 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2018

Insert "of" in front of "small cars" in the first line to correct the grammar please. Andy Gelsthorpe. Andy Gelsthorpe (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Taketa (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mini (marque). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mini (marque). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

New logo

New logo for MINI needs adding as on their website https://www.mini.co.uk/en_GB/home.html. --Hosgeorges! 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Three Cylinder Model (2014-present)

I know for a fact that the new base model MINI Coopers have a 1.5 liter 3 cylinder, which is not reflected in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshimaster18 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

3 Box minis

The section on the Mini Coupe says:

> It is the first two-seat Mini and the first to have a three-box design

If this is referring to the post-Rover MINI marque, then this is true.

However if this is referring to Mini as an overall historic marque, then this fails to take into consideration the 3 box Mini mk3 from South Africa

See: https://www.aronline.co.uk/around-the-world/leyland-south-africa/mini-mk3/

There are also related Riley Elf and Wolseley Hornet models that were 3 box minis, but they never took the Mini name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.11.73 (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mini_(marque)/Archive_4&oldid=1142771174"