Talk:Mini/Archive 1

message: Note that whilst the article later refers to NZ production, in the initial listing of countries where the mini was produced, NZ is not noted.  Would it be fair to alter the list to include NZ?
Sure - if you have the information. SteveBaker 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZ Production 

message: SteveBaker 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Steve. This does not only apply to articles about britan/Australia etc, but also articles originally written in british english by it's editors should not be changed back to american-english just because someone else prefers it. Also could you please try to stick to the wikipedia style of new comments at the bottom of talk pages and signing your name at the end of your comments. --Martyman-(talk) 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carburetor vs Carburettor 

message: SteveBaker 14:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Rearrangement 

message: SteveBaker 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Page 

message: SteveBaker 15:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Removal 

message: SteveBaker 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Speed

message: is the new one called the Mini Cooper? Rmhermen 02:37 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
==: There are model names== besides Mini One called Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper S.  These models have more power than the Mini One.  See  data page for technical details.  anobo 01:40 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::I see. I don't think they are selling the Mini One in the US. Rmhermen 17:03 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:::No, they are not - in North America they're only selling the Cooper and the Cooper S.  (BTW, the name "Cooper" honors one John Cooper, whose team of engineers and mechanics helped the original Mini win a series of rallies in the 1960s.) -- Jim Redmond 23:32, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Why

message: SteveBaker 15:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Photo Issues: 

message: This article suggests that the Mini and Morris Minor "woodie" estate cars were something uniquely British; I'd posit that they aren't.  Only the tendency to paint the panels inside the wooden frame distinguishes the British woodie from the American; see the picture of the Pontiac woodie in that article.  What do others think?
: The wood on the Morris Minor Traveller and the Mini Countryman are decorative and fitted outside the body panels - if the wood was taken off there'd only be a few holes to show. Compare with an austin A70 Hereford Estate where the framework and unpainted wood panels are structural GraemeLeggett 12:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  NB The wood on the Morris Minor Traveller is MOT-testable so presumably its structural Conch Shell 11:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies, I am wrong on this - It is Morris Minor = structural, Mini = non structural.GraemeLeggett 15:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini "Woodies" 

message: There is nothing here about the Mini Moke: which was a 'jeep like' version of the mini: sold in Australia and I only assume elsewhere as well. Does not have an article of its own as far as I can see. I am not qualified to write on it though!
--GPoss 10:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
:Also sold in the UK, and don't forget The Prisoner! I don't think it was a huge success, but definitely deserves a mention, if not an article of its own. Graham 05:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini Moke 

message: There are two articles on this car - the other is titled "Mini Cooper".  I'm not sure technically how to do it without screwing anything up, but these two articles should be combined.  Kevin in STL Oct. 14, 2004
:Disagree. The two articles link each other and don't contain much duplicate material. Combining them would make this page too long and full of excessive detail about the Cooper model, but Cooper fans would not be pleased if it was cut down. Leave it as it is. Graham 05:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles? 

message: I know it was prominently featured in both Italian Job movies. I am sure it has been in several other movies. A section on MINI in the movies?
SteveBaker 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MINI in the movies 

message: This site was advertised on the History Channel this evening.  I'm not sure if this is for real or not?  I have my doubts, it sounds to me like the work of a creative marketing department at Mini.
JesseG 03:50, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think it is real. A marketing campaign by Mini is a probable answer to it. My own answer was someone made the DVD and the comercials and he would sell the DVD's to those who were curious enough to order it. --BRO_co03 19:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
SteveBaker 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterfeit Mini Coopers 

message: One thing that definitely separates the Mini from most other cars is the crazy conversions people have done on them over the years.  It would be nice to have some photo's of some of the wackier ones.
:If so, should probably go in a separate article.Graham 04:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a new article List of Mini based cars.  It is only a list, with a few links, at the moment and is incomplete, but it does give a warning about the size of the issue. Malcolma 10:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a section on crazy modified Minis? 

message: Is it just me or is the External Links section of this article out of control. It is not possible at first glance to even pick the official BMW/MINI webpage. I would suggest that this section either get's pruned down to one or two official links or needs to be better described and split up into categories (maybe by country). Maybe a new article about mini clubs should be produced and the mini clubs could be linked from there? --Martyman-(talk) 22:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links out of control! 

message: The article says: "so most of the restored Minis now running in the US have been imported - typically from Australia or New Zealand where the climate has limited the amount of rust formation and left hand drive cars are available for relatively low prices."
Erm, how is there any significant amount of left-hand-drive Minis in these two right-hand-drive countries? Could someone comfirm that people import them to the US from these countries, because it doesn't make too much sense... --Zilog Jones 17:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree I have never seen a left hand drive mini in Australia. But I am pretty sure least the early minis where very easy to convert from letf to right hand drive. I think the only new parts required are a new steering rack and new brake lines. Otherwise everything pretty much just unbolts and bolts in the other side. --Martyman-(talk) 01:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry - I've removed the reference to LHD. SteveBaker 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US imports 

message: In the book, "Alec Issigonis: The Man who made the Mini" by Jonathan Wood there is an interview with Jack Daniels who worked very closely with Issigonis over the byears.  He insists that the engine orientation was changed on the prototype because the original reduction gears were overloading the synchromesh.  That the carb icing problem was solved at the same time was a coincidence. I have changed the article accordingly.
Malcolma 10:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Engine orientation

message: If you are interested in adding references to the article, the latest format is to use Cite.php. Instructions for it's use are available at Meta:Cite/Cite.php. --Martyman-(talk) 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider using the above style as it is designed to make keeping track of refernces much easier. The references themselves are included inline in the text and the references section is automatically generated in the correct order etc. --Martyman-(talk) 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: (Forgive a poor Wiki newbie!) I have no problem (in principle) with using that format - except that I don't understand it from the examples in Meta:Cite/Cite.php.  I don't see how you enter the name of the journal or web site or whatever.  In the example on that page, the name of the Journal "Popular Science" doesn't appear anyplace I could see in the output and all the links in the references point back into the main text.  That documentation needs some better examples I think.  SteveBaker 00:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lake Burley Griffin is an example that I have converted over. You can still use the smae template syou are using for formatting the refernces they are just included inline at the relavent places in the text in <ref> tags. The reference list at the bottom is auto created anywhere you place the  tag. --Martyman-(talk) 00:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Many thanks!  That's all I needed.  Let there be references!  SteveBaker 02:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: If the Infobox is at the top of the article - and if we use the Mk I Mini photo in the infobox - then the prototype Mini/Issigonis sketch goes under it.  The problem with that is that the text that talks about the prototype is at the top and the Mk I Mini text is underneath - so the photo's don't line up with the text anymore.
That's why I put the Infobox next to the Mk I Mini text and the prototype photo above it.
The alternative is to put the prototype photo into the Infobox - but that seems *wrong* too - I think the Infobox should contain a photo of a typical Mini...not something that was never produced.
Is it terribly bad Wiki style to have the Infobox be a couple of inches further down the article?
SteveBaker 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never noticed an article with the infobox anywhere other than the top. I would garuantee that it would be complained about during a Featured Article Candidacy. I wouldn't worry about it too much at this point, the article may well undergo further re-organisation that may lead to easier image placement. --Martyman-(talk) 15:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: True enough - and it's possible that the Issigonis sketch will have to go anyway if we can't figure out a suitable copyright exception for it. SteveBaker 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't worry too much about the copyright on the sketch. If there is discussion of issigonis' design in the article, a fair use claim is pretty safe. --Martyman-(talk) 04:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox at the top? 

message: In the infobox there is listed under "Body Style" a coupe and a hatchback. As far as I am aware there never was a coupe and the only hatchback was the Italian Innocenti, a very different car. I have changed the terms to saloon and van which were made. (Arguably the van and estate were 4 doors, having two at the back!) Malcolma 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a plastic bodied mini that looked very similar to a standard mini but with a hatchback produced in some weird country, I just can't find my book that mentions it (and has a photo). I am not sure ti was actually called a "mini" though. --Martyman-(talk) 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that the Mini is a 'saloon'.  Dictionaries give slightly varying definitions, but the gist seems to be: saloon = enclosed body, 4+ seats, 2/4 doors and luggage space; coupé = enclosed body with sloping back, 2 seats with possibly 2 restricted seats in the rear, 2-door.  I think all 3 box cars are saloons, but not all saloons are 3 box cars.  Check out the definitions at: Cambridge Saloon, Coupe.  Chambers Saloon, Coupe, or for US definitions: Merriam-Webster Sedan, Coupe.  Also look at contemporary marketing literature, hanbooks and so forth, you'll see it often described as a 'saloon' or a 'sedan' there. -- De Facto 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Cambridge definition for a Coupe says "possibly sloping back" - the Mini fits their definition of a coupe perfectly.  Their definition for a Saloon indicates the need for a separate rear storage area - well, the Mini has that - but it's not really identifiable from the outside.  By Chambers' definitions, a coupe has to have a sloping back - so the Mini isn't a coupe.  If you use the Merriam-Webster definition, then it's a coupe because of the tight spacing of the rear seats.  However, if you go by the Wiki definitions, the Mini is most definitely a coupe because to be a saloon it needs to have more than 33 cu.ft of interior space - and it doesn't.  Why I prefer the Wiki definition is  (a) for internal consistancy within Wiki and (b) because it's backed by an SAE standard - which IMHO trumps the other vague and conflicting definitions from all of the other dictionaries.   If we don't like the Wiki definitions for Saloon and Coupe - then they need to be changed because according to their definition, the Mini is a coupe. (Steve Baker - currently sockpuppeted as: 130.210.164.20) 21:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Wiki definition of two door sedan appears to cover it adequately with: 'In the popular vernacular, a two-door sedan is defined by appearance and not by volume -- vehicles with a so-called "formal roofline" are called two-door sedans, while those with the more common sloping backlight are called coupes'.  Does Mini have a "formal roofline" or a "sloping backlight"?  I think the former.  -- De Facto 11:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The SAE definition quoted in the coupe article is 33 cu ft of rear interior space which is the same as the Car and Driver web site. I have not got a copy of J1100 as it costs $59.00 to download, but reading comments on it leads me to believe that it is essentially a standardisation of ways to measure a car. It is not a Standard by the way, it is a "Recommended Practice" if that makes a difference. The Wiki Sedan articles says the rear volume is "a calculation made by multiplying the legroom, shoulder room, and headroom". On the Mini, leg room (minimum) 38.5 inches, shoulder room 44.5 inches and headroom is 33.5 inches.  This comes to 33.21 cubic feet. So the Mini is a saloon, just as Issigonis said it was. Malcolma 10:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have over the years owned three Minis, two saloons and a van.  I have never owned a BMC Mini coupe because there never was one.  Coupe versions were made by several kit car makers but that is another story.  The sales literature that I have for the Mini calls the car throughout a Saloon. The articles you quote on Sedans and Coupes are full of "generally" and "sometimes" and quite rightly so as body terminology is not a science but nowadays an advertising art.  BMC and their successors always called the Mini a saloon so I think we should take their word for it. Malcolma 10:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Countryman and Travellers were estates and don't forget the flatbed pickup. GraemeLeggett 12:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saloon or Coupe? 

message: I hope you don't mind me moving stuff to the appropriate (in my opinion) sections.  I think the article reads better if related stuff is together.  All design details aimed at increasing available space together - rather than random paragraphs dotted about with "The Mini had ..." and repeating or rephrasing "to maximise space" for each thing.  Also changes for MkII should be in the MkII section etc. -- De Facto 12:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding in context 

message: Hi Guys, great work on teh article it is looking better and better. A couple more suggestions from me. I think the article would flow better if the Cooper and Variants sections did not break up the flow of the MK1, MK2, Clubman, MK3 and New MINI sections, which seem to flow quite well as date ordered sections. I also think the new MINI section should be expanded a little with some info back ported fromt the sub-article. The Manual of Styel suggests a couple of parragraphs to summarise a spun off sub-article. --Martyman-(talk) 10:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organisation suggestions 

message: It looks like the drastic changes to the article have flattened out to small tweaks here and there.  We have addressed (I think) all of the likely issues that might prevent Featured Article status.  It seems that the first step towards Featured Article is to check against the featured article criteria.  Let's see how we stand:
# It exemplifies our very best work.
#: I think it's better than quite a few recent featured articles...so 'Check!'.
# It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable.
#: As far as I can tell, it passes these criteria...so 'Check!'.
# It complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects.
#* a concise lead section
#* a proper system of hierarchical headings
#* a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
#: 'Check!'
# It has images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status;
#: 'Check!'
# It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail
#: 'Check!'
The second step is to apply for Peer review.   I'm going to ask for that now.  SteveBaker 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article?  Is it time yet? 

message: I'm getting confusing feedback about year linking.  Quite a few of the FA candidates have been criticised for linking to year numbers.  For example User:Spangineer said of the Joan of Arc article:
  "...the year linking seems inconsistent—unless there are extraordinarily good
   reasons for keeping a year link that isn't attached to a day and month, I'd
   suggest removing the link."
The WP:MOS section on links says we should avoid "low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century".
Mmm'K, but today's featured article on Zion National Park has every single year number linked - gratuitously IMHO.  To be honest, I never saw the benefit of doing this.  Does the fact that the Mini started production in 1959 make a large number of people want to read about other things in 1959?  I kinda doubt it.
So - following the demand to 'Be Bold' - I'm dumping all of the date links from this article. SteveBaker 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year Linking is BAD?! 

message: Are we over-linked?  I checked with the WP:MOS.  We would be over-linked if:
* more than 10% of the words are contained in links;
** We have 3455 words and 127 links. About 3.7% -- CHECK!
* it has more links than lines;
** Formatted for 80 character lines we have 322 lines and 127 links -- CHECK!
* a link is repeated in the same article (although there may be case for duplicating an important link that is distant from the previous occurrence);
** We have 19 occurrances of multiple links to the same article.  I'm checking through them now to see if they are 'distant' or whether there is other good reason to have done it...MAYBE.
* more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or
** We have 5 red links - plus two from the BMC/Rover template at the bottom.  That's about 5% of the links -- CHECK!
* low added-value items are linked without reason — such as, 1995, 1980s, and 20th century.
** I just went through and removed all of the year number links.  I'm looking for other low-valued links now (and spotting some more high valued ones in the process!)
So - three out of five...I have more work to do. <sigh>
SteveBaker 04:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One little comment: I saw Goodbye Pork Pie in the cinema in the UK when it was a new release, so it did get a general UK release. Wouldn't know if it has a more recent DVD release though. Graham 11:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More [[WP:MOS]] issues 

message: Sorry - but I really, deeply hate this change - it results in really narrow (and consequently, hard to read) text strips running down between the photos.  I'm strongly inclined to push them all back over to the right - but I don't want to start an argument if the majority disagree with me.  I don't see any kind of Wiki style guidelines out there telling us which is preferred style - but when we were listed as 'Good Article' status, the nomination comment specifically stated that our layout was perfect.  Changing perfection is generally a bad idea. SteveBaker 23:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt that some of the images were cluttered together, and they gave rise to large gaps of 'white space' between some of the paragraphs, were not alongside the appropriate text, and gave the article a less than balanced appearance - but I'm not that bothered. - De Facto 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of photo's has started to overrun the amount of text - and that's the root cause here.  I still have a little more text to add in a few places - which will redress that balance a little.  I've also removed the photo of the kit car in an effort to bring things back into line towards the bottom of the article where the imbalance between text and photos is at it's worst.  I hope that allays your worries a little - and I promise to work to improve things still more.  However, I really dislike the alternating left/right pattern - so since you aren't that bothered, I've pushed the photos back to the right.  Part of the problem here is that we never know how wide the reader's browser window is.   If you have a very high res screen with a small font size and a wide browser window, the alternating left/right thing works quite well because there is always room between the photos for a decent amount of text.  But with a lower resolution screen, bigger font and/or narrow browser window, the alternating pattern results in a thin column of text with just a few words on each line - which is near impossible to read.  Forcing the images to be on the right solves that problem - but results in images not lining up with the corresponding text on wide/highres setups.  I don't know how to fix that - other than to reduce the number of photos or increase the amount of text. (Which - weirdly - is what the Wikipedia image placement guidelines suggest we do!)  However, gaps are inevitable for people with high resolution screens.  Is there some kind of Wiki markup that prevents a new section from starting halfway through a photo that belongs to a previous section?  That would at least prevent the photos from getting misaligned with the text - although you'd still get gaps in the text. SteveBaker 15:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks better already!  I think the clue is to put the image tag at the start of the section/paragraph it belongs to and then worry about the necessary formatting afterwards.  There is a way to force the next text to start after an image, put '' after the image, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Forcing a break. - De Facto 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment Isambard Kingdom Brunel got Featured within the past week, with all images to the right, no adverse comments about it... I definitely prefer it :D --PopUpPirate 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also like the IKB article, I've created a timeline template which you might find useful - dunno if it'll fit in with this article but here goes :
--PopUpPirate 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It works great on Isambard Kingdom Brunel down at the bottom, just not sure if it would work on here. --PopUpPirate 22:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah - you're right.  Alongside the See Also and References would work.  The only slight 'gotcha' is that we have the honking great huge ROVER template at the bottom.  I have a bunch of book references to dump in there just as soon as I track down all the ISBN numbers - that'll push the rover template down a ways and free up a lot of empty space over to the right of  the references.  I say "Go For It!".  SteveBaker 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Awesome!  With all of these extra ref's, the timeline fits like a glove! SteveBaker 01:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good that! --PopUpPirate 08:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how to edit the timeline but there are two mistakes and a comment. The mistakes - at the top it refers to the Morris Minor and in 1964 the Coopse S. Comment - we have said that the various Mks after the III are not well defined but the timeline puts dates to them.  Malcolma 09:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have added the Morris Mini Minor to the top of the time line and the introduction of the Mini as a separate marque in 1970.  Can someone confirm the latter date as one of my references gives it as 1969. Malcolma 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Updated --PopUpPirate 13:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternating left/right images 

message: If a photo of the MINI is appropriate in an article about the Mini I think we need to find one without a MINI dealer's advertisment so clearly displayed on it.  What do others think? - De Facto 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MINI image 

message: It doesn't look like we're likely to get any more peer review comments - it's not exactly been a hotbed of critique or anything - and our 'two weeks of no activity' runs out pretty soon so we'll be dumped off the peer review list anyway.  Is it time to shoot for FA?   I honestly can't think of anything more to do - the article meets every criterion I could find - and if we keep pushing the words around, it'll start to get stale.  How about we set a deadline to self-nominate next weekend?  How about we each read through the whole thing carefully and try to confine ourselves to fixing grammar, spelling, etc?  SteveBaker 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerrit submitted :D --PopUpPirate 13:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go for Featured Article Next Week? 

message: Although there are currently "more than you can shake a stick at", if verification is important, I think references are required for:
* The paragraph about "the Mini came about because of a fuel crisis", which although interesting, is not supported. - De Facto 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References required 

message: Jim Gambony from our local Mini club wrote to me about the article: "One nitpick so far for the article. Up near the top in the Mk II section it's stated that: "Production of the 998 cc variant ended in 1969, with over 55,000 cars sold" but in the timeline near the bottom it's mentioned that various 1000 specials were offered in the '70s, with the 1000 and 1275 converted to A+ blocks in the '80s.  The 1000... is a 998 engine."
Did the 998 vanish in 1969 - only to be brought back in 1976?  I gotta admit he's right - but I'm a Mk I kinda guy and I don't quite know what to do about it.  Can someone clarify that sentence in the Mk II section? SteveBaker 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts, facts, facts 

message: Well, I self-nominated this article for FA status.  Several useful comments appeared in the first few minutes.
SteveBaker 20:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Candidate. 

message: Does anyone have any thoughts on which car was the predecessor to the Mini? Or maybe it's already been discussed and I've missed it. If so apologies. If not, I wonder if it's valid to say the predecessor to the Mini was the Austin 7 and the Morris Minor? Some might say that the Mini was so revolutionary that it didn't have any predecessors. But if you have to name something, are these the right cars to name? The Austin 7 stopped production in 1939 - 30 years earlier. So calling it a predecessor can only be because it shares the name. And the Morris Minor was still in production in 1971, so it was a contemporary of the Mini for 12 years - quite a long time in car production terms. And the Minor was a different size of car, too; the names Minor and Mini-Minor suggest that they were seen as different sized members of a family of cars.
The only car that I can think of that might be termed a predecessor in purely chronological terms is the Austin A35. I think it was the smallest Austin and the passenger version stopped production in 1959, the same year that the Mini was launched. So the smallest Austin in the range was replaced in 1959, with the Austin Seven taking the place of the A35. At that time the smallest Morris was the Minor, so the Mini-Minor filled a gap in the Morris range, rather than taking the place of an existing car.
What do others think? Adrian Robson 18:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fiat 500 was the nearest Fiat to the Mini in the early years.  It was not at all popular in the UK - although it was my first car (it truly was a horrible machine).  The Fiat's top speed was 57mph and it took about 40 seconds to get up to that dizzing speed - providing you didn't have a passenger...need I say more?! SteveBaker 14:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, that helps to clarify what was intended in the infobox. The problem was that the link was pointing to the wrong Minor. So I've corrected the link, though it's now pointing to an article which doesn't yet exist. Any volunteers?! I must say I still think that the average reader may find it odd that the predecessors to a revolutionary style of car are thought to be 1920s designs that went out of production 20-25 years earlier. I'd still argue that the A35 has a stronger case chronologically and technically. But I'm happy to defer to your reasoning. We just need someone to do some work on a pre-war Minor article! Here's an interesting link http://www.mmoc.org.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=64 . The alternative, of course, might be to say that it had no real predecessors. Adrian Robson 10:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mini can be said to have had predecessors only if it replaced those cars (isn't "predecessor" related to "pre-deceased"?). The Minor was not replaced by the Mini - the Moggie lingered until 1971. The A35 was Austin's smallest car in the range but the A40 Farina is its replacement. The Mini is a new development in cars and has no predecessors - you can't point to any previous Morris or Austin models and say that the Mini evolved from it.  GraemeLeggett 12:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to add - could the Mini Metro be considered the Mini's sucessor? GraemeLeggett 12:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Metro went out of production before the last Mini was made - so that's a little hard to defend! SteveBaker 14:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just been looking at the Metro page where it says that the Metro was "originally intended as a replacement for the Mini". It was also originally called the Mini-Metro. I think it was designed to be a Mini replacement but in the end the Mini outlived it. Does that make it a successor or a contemporary? I'm not sure. Malcolma 08:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's another hard call - we don't have an adequate definition for the term "successor" in this context.  Websters' says "succeed: To come next after another; follow; ensue." - the Metro didn't come next after the Mini - it came during - and (mercifully) went away long before the end - of Mini production.  I would say that while the Metro was designed to succeed the Mini, it didn't actually  manage to do that - so I don't think it counts.  On the other hand, the modern MINI went into production within just a few months of the very last classic Mini rolling off the line - it's quite clearly designed as a literal successor - and that's what it has proven to be. SteveBaker 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, a good summary. I re-raised the issue because I thought there should be a record that it had been considered. I think now the whole predecessor/successor issue can be put to sleep. Malcolma 20:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor/Successor 

message: It looks like we just made FA status!!  Woohoo!
Thanks to everyone who contributed...it was worth the effort.
I added a request to place the article on the front page - taking
the existing intro and photo without change.
See Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article
SteveBaker 20:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations Everyone!! 

message: There has been some revert/re-revert going on about the section that says:
  "a second attempt to produce a four-wheel-drive vehicle, this time using
   a transfer case, which was cancelled when BMC acquired Land Rover;..."
The article is flipping back and forth between saying "when BMC acquired Land Rover" and "when BMW acquired Land Rover".  I'm puzzled because the timeline template at the bottom of the British Motor Corporation article says that Land Rover became Rover but BMC become BMH before British Leyland swallowed up both BMC and Rover (and hence Land Rover) - so at no point did BMC acquire Land Rover. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that they were still dinking around with Moke/Ant/whatever designs when BMW acquired the whole mess in the mid-1990's.
So either the Leyland timeline template is badly wrong or NEITHER BMW nor BMC could be correct here.  I'm betting this should be British Leyland.
Anyway - because Mini is up for Featured Article of the Day - which will be decided pretty soon - I don't want to mess that up on grounds of 'instablility' - I think the best thing we can do is to remove the entire offending phrase (which didn't read well and wasn't really necessary) until we can decide what's correct.
SteveBaker 20:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMC or BMW? 

message: FYI: The MINI (BMW) article made it to 'Good Article' status and is going through Peer-Review right now - with a view to shooting for FA status in a few weeks from now.  If you have a moment to spare, please go to WP:PR and leave your comments.  Thanks! SteveBaker 00:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BMW MINI article 

message: A minor stylistic point. The text says: "Between 1960 and 1967, approximately 10,000 BMC Minis were imported to the US."
Were they imported or exported? In this context, I'd suggest "exported". 
In the next paragraph, though, "imported" looks right in this sentence: "Minis that were originally sold in the US are becoming hard to find, so most of the restored Minis now running in the US have been imported..." Adrian Robson 11:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imported or exported? 

message: Mark your calendars - tell your friends!  It looks like Mini will be on the Wikipedia front page on April 17th.  (Depending on your time zone, it might be the 16th or the 18th).
SteveBaker 03:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like we made the front page! 

message: I have some quibbles with the info regarding John Cooper - he was a F1 Manufacturer's Championship winner, not a F1 Champion, as this implies he was a F1 driver. John Cooper's involvement with BMC was originally thru Formula Junior, where he was race-modifying the 'A' block for that series, and most of the original engine mods were borrowed from this endeavour. I have never read anywhere  that Cooper's involvement was influenced by rallying - his emphasis was on track racing the Mini, which the factory was not really interested in until later. I believe Cooper had to do bit of an end-run around Sir Alec, (who wasn't really keen at first to hotrod the Mini), and went directly to others at BMC to get approval. The 1275 displacement was primarily driven by factory rally requirements, but was integrated into the existing track racing requirements to ease production, I believe. You might wish to mention the Mini's many successes in the British Saloon car races, where it won a number of class championships with Warwick Banks, John Rhodes, Richard Longman, and others. Vanwall 05:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Cooper connection 

message: I don't think it makes any sense to say that the Mini outlasted the Citroen 2CV and the Volkswagen Beetle. 
For a start, both the 2CV and VW Beetle were in production long before the Mini began production. The 2CV started production in 1948 and finished production in 1990 (in otherwords it was in production for 42 years against the Mini's 41). Secondly, the Volkswagen started production in the 1930s (although full steam production did in the 1940), and finished production almost three years after the Mini, in 2003.
The argument that the Mini outlasted the VW Beetle in Europe is misleading. The makers of the Mini didn't have any production facilities overseas, so they couldn't move the production over there. It is more than likely they would have if they could, given the archaic, slow and expensive methods of production.
* Well, firstly it's a matter of CONTINUOUS production - there were several times in the history of both 2CV and VW Bug when production stopped - often for a year or more - or shifted to other companies.  Secondly, the Mini most certainly was made overseas - in Italy and Spain there were full-blown Mini factories - often with their own varients of the car - in MANY other countries, Mini's were sent over in kit form and reassembled locally. The last beetle to be made in Europe was in 1978 - the last one SOLD in Europe was 1985. the Mini was made in Europe until August 2000 - so it's certainly correct to say that the Mini outlasted the Bug IN EUROPE.  SteveBaker 21:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longevity of Production 

message: Malcolma and I have been discussing the new pickup photo.  He had added a comment that the wheels were not stock (which is 100% true).  I reverted that change on the grounds that virtually every one of our photos is of a somewhat non-stock Mini - and that changing the wheels to the 'Minilite' style is a VERY common practice - so why single out the pickup photo in that way?
That Pickup does look wrong (although not half as wrong as the previous pickup photo I put up there - I fondly imagined that they actually made them with a chrome grille late in their production - but the truth is that they never did.  The problem is that the stock grille rusts very commonly and nobody makes after-market body panels for the pickup's front end.  Hence a common fix is to put a Mk II body panel on there - hence the non-stock grille on the earlier photo.  The new photo captures the spartan front-end of the pickup better than the previous photo did).
When I say "Minilite wheels" - I guess I mean wheels in the Minilite style.   Mine have the same curved spoke design - but they are made by someone else.  But looking at the photos in the article:
* Image:1963 MkI Mini.jpg - Non-stock wheel arch flares. Missing chrome trim on wheel arches and rocker panels. (This car actually has Minilite wheels now.) It's also BRG/W which is not correct for a '63 Mk I - it would have been Almond green with a green roof.
* Image:Mini traveller.jpg - Minilite wheels (non standard)
* Image:Riley.elf.arp.750pix.jpg - Minilite wheels (non-standard), missing chrome trim on wheel arches and rocker panels.
* Image:Mini countryman.jpg - This is actually a heavily refabricated countryman back-end welded onto a Mk III saloon car front end...where do I begin discussing what's wrong with it?  Minilite wheels, wheel arch flares, white turn signals, body-coloured door mirrors, non-standard seats...I could go on!  However, this car regularly wins show awards and captures the look of a Mini Countryman very nicely.
* Image:Mini pickup truck.jpg - Minilite wheels - wheel arches...everything else is good though.  The yellow car just behind it has Minilites too!
* Image:Mini.bristol.750pix.jpg - This one appears to be stock - although I'm suspicious of the boot lid.
* Image:Mini clubman.jpg - Minilite wheels - missing chrome around wheel arches, etc. Missing door mirrors.
* Image:Mini cooper.jpg - This image is too small to really analyse - but I don't think those are correct wheels or wheel arches and there seems to be a lot of blacked out chrome.
* Image:Ljeto2005-085.jpg - Minilites again, non-standard taillights and wheel arch flares.
* Image:MINI cabriolet MJC.jpg - I don't know enough about these cars to tell what's original.
* Image:Outspan Orange.jpg - appears stock?! :-)
* Image:Minis of Texas Meeting Feb 2006.jpg - Every single one of those 5 Mini's has non-stock wheels and a BUNCH of other stuff "wrong" with them.
* Image:MINIandClassicMini.jpg - More minilite wheels - non-stock wheel flares...
If we have better photos, we should use them (but the article is going on the front page TONIGHT - so let's not screw around with it just yet!).
SteveBaker 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity of Photos 

message: Congrats...Alexbuirds 14:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Featured Article 

message: References to the "Hershey Chocolate Crisis" and the car being designed in 1996 as a result.
Alas, haven't a clue how to revert this to an older version, I'm mainly just a lurker here.
Doctor Sinister 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page appears to have been vandalised... 

message: I believe it should be capitalized, and would submit that Jeep-like is not proper. I did not edit due to this being featured
That shouldn't have stopped you - lots of people have edited today.  I agree that "Jeep" is a trade-mark - which is why I didn't capitalise it as a proper noun because I'm not talking about an actual Jeep (ie a noun) - I'm using the word as an adjective.  Just because the word is trademarked doesn't mean you can't use it.  You just can't use the word to market another similar product.  I belive that saying that this vehicle is somewhat like a Jeep is OK. (IANAL).  However, if you can come up with an alternative description of the weird Mini Moke that explains it as succinctly - I'd be very happy to change it.  SteveBaker 01:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeep is a trademarked proper noun

message: Well, our 24 hours in the dazzling light of the front page are over.
I analysed the results:
* Over the 24 hours on the front page: 110 edits!
** 35 Vandalisms (plus 30 reverts)
** 6 Poor edits (plus  6 reverts)
* So - eighty pointless changes and thirty good ones.
* However, almost all of those were minor nit-picks - changing links-to-redirects into direct links, tiny (and largely debatable) changing of phrasing, teeny-tiny WP:MOS polishing.
* Not one single new fact was added, corrected or removed - except for a 'Trivia' section that was added about Mr Bean's car then (wisely) removed again.
* The most significant and useful change was probably the placing of the correct accents on Timo Mäkinen's name.
I was amazed at the effect on articles that Mini linked to though - there was a HUGE increase in activity on almost every page we linked to.
SteveBaker 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Aftermath of the Front Page 

message: is there a special concentration of Minis in Manhattan? Its not that uncommon to see minis here, and there's been twice in the last year in different neighbourhoods I've seen 3 (new looking) Minis parked nearby in the same street. Not sure if they were the classic or new kind Bwithh 23:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minis in Manhattan

message: Is Mini a manufacturer, a marque, or a model?  If it is a manufacturer then it is still going strong - manufacturing MINIs under BMW - they bought the Mini brand (and plant) and developed it into MINI.  If it is a marque or a model then it does not qualify for :Category:Defunct motor manufacturers of the United Kingdom -De Facto 18:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK that makes sense, I was quickly applying SteveBaker's logic about MINI. Should we therefore take Mini out of :Category:Automobile manufacturers? Ian3055 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. SteveBaker 17:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defunct manufacturer? 

message: How many Mini Cooper were by by Innocenti ? In France, they are far more common than the British made. Ericd 22:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the invaluable Unofficial Austin Morris Web Resource  http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?ado161300gtf.htm Innocenti made 36,770 Mk2 and Mk 3 Coopers and 21,653 Cooper 1300s. The latter was an Innocenti only model made by fitting a 1300GT saloon engine into a Mini bodyshell. Malcolma 08:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this at least 40% of the production. Much more if you only consider the "large engines" Coopers... Ericd 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production figures for the Mini Cooper 

message: While I believe in some French influence in the decision. The Monte-Carlo rally is organized by the Automobile Club de Monaco, an independant state. I don't think the judges were only French. Ericd 22:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the books I've read on the subject make it pretty clear that it was a French decision that a French car should win.  Remember - it wasn't only the Mini's that were disqualified on technicalities - and the Citroen that won SHOULD have been disqualified on similar technicalities if fairness has been implied - but it was a French car. Since we are supposed to avoid original research - I'll quote "The Essential Mini Cooper" by Anders Ditley Clausager, page 45: "They, and other British works entries, were disqualified, apparently to allow a French car - Pauli Tivonen's Citroen DS 19 - to win Europe's most prestigious event. The French rally organisers appeared to doubt that the Mini Cooper S cars really were to standard specification, ....".  Let's pick another book: "MINI" by Patrick C. Paternie, page 19: "A three-peat for Mini at the Monte was nullified in 1966 when French officials disqualified the Mini Coopers that had finished one-two-three."....If you need more quotes - I can certainly find them.  Hence I'm reverting your change - these were most certainly FRENCH judges. If you have evidence that non-French judges were involved, I'd be happy to hear it - but I doubt most strongly you'll find it. SteveBaker 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Minis were disqualified by the "Collège des commissaires techniques". I can't trace it back to 1966 but as of today the collège's Président is a Monegaque. I don't believe it was different in 1966. Futhermore the decision was confirmed by the FIA. Thus writing French is a simplification. Ericd 12:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I know Monaco isn't France - I've been there - my wife was born in France, not far from Monaco.  However, the entire population of Monaco is about 32,000 people - how many of those are experienced rally car judges?   It is almost certain then that most (if not all) of the judges were not Monaco citizens - and it's not at all unreasonable to believe that the judges were French.  Your reference is one I'm aware of - it doesn't say that the judges were not French.  In fact it says that "The Federation Internationale de l'Automobile in Paris said the iodine quartz headlights fitted on the British cars were not standard."...sounds like French judges to me.  There is no doubt that the Mini's and the Ford Cortina were in breach of the rules - but it was a TEENY-TINY technicality that would never have been sufficient to knock a winner off the podium in any previous (or later) Monte Carlo rally.  Furthermore, the Citroen that was finally ruled to be the winner was ALSO in breach of the headlight homologation rules.   The driver of that car protested the decision (even though it was in his favor) and Prince Rainier of Monaco walked out on the ceremony in protest.  By any measure, this was a grossly unfair decision - and you still havn't presented any evidence that the judges might not have been French. SteveBaker 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please have a look at Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Ericd 20:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did - it has no bearing on this. SteveBaker 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Look - you still haven't come up with a single reference that says something like "The judges who disqualified the Mini from the Monte in 1966 were XXX" (where 'XXX' is something other than 'French').  All you are offering is circumstantial stuff.  I have FOUR books and one magazine article that ALL say "French" - and in all of my copious Mini book collection, I don't have a single one that says anything other than "French".  You are telling me that you believe that all of those sources are wrong - but you can't offer one single book or magazine article that says that...not *ONE*.  Until you can quote some really solid references (and they'd have to be pretty damned amazing to beat the highly respected books I'm able to quote) - it's a no-win argument.  Wikipedia demands that facts be backed by solid references.  I've done that - just the Clausager book by itself would suffice - it is exceedingly well respected as a trustworthy source of information about the Mini.  I've even quoted two of those reference verbatim (see above) just in case you don't have access to those books.  I'm doing precisely what Wikipedia demands I do in the event of a factual dispute.  It's game-over for your position until you can prove that my references are bogus.  Please - let's end this debate right here and now - until/unless you can quote us some reference material of similar breadth and reputation to back up your point.  We'll need book title, author and page number - and a quotation would help.  Thanks. SteveBaker 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monte-Carlo Rally and French judges 

message: This article says:
"...the 1275GT was the first vehicle to be offered with run-flat tyres; from 1974..."
And the run flat tires article says:
"The first vehicle ever to be sold with run-flat tires was the Mini Clubman and Mini 1275GT in 1969."
Can anyone check sources on the date and whether or not it was both models? Adrian Robson 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run flat tyres