Talk:Supermini

message: Just been reading about the word "supermini." The Morris Mini Metro, it seems, was cramped in the front and couldn't be driven for long distances comfortably. Lo and behold, the Fiat 128 was two feet longer, having 28% more usable volume for 14% greater weight. They called it the "Supermini." 
How can you call the Fiat 500 a Supermini when it came before the Mini? This defies logic! If this were a paper encyclopedia, I'd tear this page out! --Sobolewski 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extry, Extry! Definition Defies Logic!

message: I removed the reference to the revolutionary Austin Metro. What is so revolutionary about it? Also references to the Hillman Imp (an internationally irrelevant car), while no references to the Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV or Renault 4?
I'm not sure what was so revolutionary about the Metro either, it keep some features of the Mini (hydromatic suspension) but offered nothing radical Alastairward 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the Metro had the hatchback - but I doubt it gets the title of "first hatchbacked supermini"...so yeah - it can be dumped.  Whilst the Imp may have been internationally irrelevent - it's a pretty iconic car to the Brits.  But the Imp, the Fiat 500 and the 2CV were not by any stretch of the imagination "Supermini's" . The Fiat and the 2CV were both horribly underpowered, cornered like a horse and cart and were not fun-to-drive street rockets as the SuperMini class requires.  Even the Mini itself wasn't really a "SuperMini" - although it needs mentioning here because it is indisputable progenitor of the Supermini - and indeed is the entire reason they are called that in the first place.
I'm not real familiar with the Renault 4 though...dunno about that one.  SteveBaker 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metro 

message: Much as I hate to admit it (I'm quite patriotic!), this article is horribly British biased. While this car class might not be common in the US, therefore there need not be that much US info, there needs to a be more Asian and European slant. Calling cars foreign in an international encyclopedia isn't really on Talltim (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about a British term, so no surprise. I believe, however, we don't need the ramblings on the fate of various cars over the years, which has little to do with explaining the term "supermini". PrinceGloria (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody care to revamp this section into something acceptable? I've got the scissors ready at hand if nobody cares... PrinceGloria (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If nothing is going to be done or proposed to alleviate OR/POV woes concerning this section in the coming few days, I am going to remove it altogether. If an editor would wish to rework it, providing much-needed sources, impartiality and overall encyclopedicity in lieu of editorial style, it will always be accessible in article's history. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No reaction in a week, so here I go. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British bias 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Comment - The dab page is useful as a soft redirect of sorts to Wiktionary. It should at least be moved to Supermini (disambiguation) instead of simply overwritten. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Should we add the discontinued cars? I personally did... If someone thinks it shouldn't, they just have to undo my changes...Ideeman1994 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discontinued cars? 

message: Back in 2012, the redirect B-segment was turned into a separate article, despite the clear content overlap between the two articles.  I have merged them here, though I don't know which title is better.  If others feel that B-segment is the better term, then an article rename is in order. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged. Rename? 

message: Even though the terms are different, supermini and subcompact are broadly the same in context, in that they both pertain to the B-segment of cars. Let's not forget there are articles for all 3 of these subjects in the English Wiki. Here's the difference based on my observations:
* Supermini has become customary in British use and its context is not so formal.
* Subcompact, on the other hand, is accepted as standard usage by the majority and there are written standards that support this.
Even if the terms are different, and have slightly different connotations, that's not to say their willful meaning (their context) is any different. The Italian Wiki has a similar duality problem putting these terms into context. On the Spanish Wiki, there is only the B-segment article to refer to which puts 3 terms into 1. I recommend getting a more international perspective.
FielderSincera01 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. The lead states that supermini is ..."an equivalent of the European B-segment or American subcompact". If that's true then why does this article exist, apart from as a history of the British examples of the segment? --Cornellier (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Agree. They are basically classifications in different regions for the same cars. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this article into "Subcompact car"