Talk:Mini/Archive 2

Related to Safety, but appearing in the Sales - United States section is the following passage:

"Between 1960 and 1967, BMC exported approximately 10,000 left-hand drive BMC Minis to the United States. Sales were discontinued when stricter federal safety standards were imposed in 1968; the Mini's wheelbase was too short to comply." Specifically, the part that I question concerns "...the Mini's wheelbase was too short to comply.". Many years ago, I owned a 1972 Honda 600 Coupe. The Coupe was imported for the 1971 and 72 model years. The corresponding Honda 600 Sedan (pretty much a 2 cylinder Mini clone) was imported for the 1970, 71 and 72 model years. They were mechanical twins and both had a wheelbase of 2000mm. The Mini saloon wheelbase is listed as 2040mm and the estate/commercial versions at 2140mm. Unless the DOT regulations changed, the "...too short to comply." statement must not be correct. The Honda information is quoted from the Owner's Manuals for the Coupe and Sedan models. Please clarify. Thanks!

Flatlander 48 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in the USA have never included any regulations relating to vehicle package dimensions, so the comment that the Mini was 'killed' in the US market by the car's short wheelbase is an utter fabrication. The congressional authority that approved the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965 specifically forbid requiring specific engineering technologies and solutions (including package dimensions) to allow compliance. As Flatlander has pointed out the arrival of the Honda 600 in the 1970 model year indicates that the 'regulation' was non-existent.

Bwob (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to have input about the removal of the following text about safety:

Active safety

Alec Issigonis designed the Mini to be a safe car counting only on active safety. He said:

I make my cars with such good brakes, such good steering, that if people get into a crash it´s their own fault ^[1]

Passive safety:

According with the latest Road accident statistics on a model-by-model basis published by the British government, the Mini is the estudied car that offer less protection in case of a two car accident ^[2].

These statistics do not address the chances of being into an accident (i.e., the active safety).

Murray Mackay, Britain´s first automobile accident investigator ^[3] said about the Mini:

the filler cap gets sheared off, you´ve got fuel pouring out, you´ve got an electrical source and you´ve got a big fire immediately. The door latch is just like an ordinary house latch so if the door gets stretched, then the door just open out and people will be ejected and fall out without any resistance at all...[]...The engine comes back against the far wall and then the whole lot comes forward into the interior of the vehicle. So we said some very unpleasant things about the Mini in the local newspapers...[]...the Mini was a failure in North America. It was withdrawn because it couldn´t meet even the safety regulations at that time

References

My comment for the summary for the aforelinked removal:

• If my writing is poor, I kindly invite other users to improve it.

• If my reference style is "crappy", ditto.

• I am unable to imagine how just a say-so could dismiss as "factually incorrect" pieces of sourced data. Please explain me.

• If someone knows that "Bumper height restrictions killed the Mini in the USA, not general safety", please add that piece of sourced information, but do not remove contradictory sourced data. Please note I used a very cautious "this source said this or that" format. I invite other users to do the same to avoid fruitless disputes. Wikipedia is not about "how things are or were", but about "what the sources say about how things are or were".

Thank you. Randroide (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The layout of your 'Safety' section does not follow WP:MOS - quite frankly, it's a mess.
2. Spelling and grammar is poor - that by itself wouldn't have made me revert.
3. You have errors in your quote (I'm pretty sure Mackay didn't say "far wall" - it's a "fire wall"...for example). If that's wrong - how much else is wrong? I don't have a copy of that book to correct it - but if you didn't check that you typed the quote correctly - who knows what else you mistyped that most people here will have no way to correct.
4. You aren't using the modern 'cite' referencing style used throughout the remainder of the article...again, I would have fixed that if the new section was worth keeping.
5. Your quote from Mackey about why the Mini was withdrawn is highly misleading - although you may have a reference that shows that he said it, it's misleading to quote people who aren't experts as if they are. A British car safety inspector cannot be expected to be an expert on the motives a major company may have had for withdrawing a car from a foreign market. Sources elsewhere are quite clear on the true reasons. Check almost any of the other books I've referenced in the article and you'll find that the Mini was pretty successful in the USA - supplies were limited - but they had no trouble selling every one that was exported there. The "safety" problem that caused it to be withdrawn was nothing to do with all of the other things you quoted - it was SPECIFICALLY because there was a minimum bumper height imposed and redesigning the car to raise the bumper was essentially impossible - and because it was believed that the engine would be unable to meet US emissions regulations. This too can be found in the many books I've referenced. Note that the Mini Moke - which was a total death-trap of a machine was sold in the US as late as 1973...the Mini saloon is vastly safer than the Moke! Your quote directly contradicts what we say (with appropriate references) elsewhere in the article - that's inconsistent and makes a mess of the whole thing.
6. The Issigonis text is taken out of context - read Issigonis's biography (also referenced in the article)
7. There are plenty of passive safety features in the car - but only to the level that was typical of other cars of the era (although by modern standards it's certainly not safe). Compare the 1959 Mini to a typical 1950's "Bubble Car" like the Isetta - that's the market it was in - the Mini was MUCH safer than an Isetta! But the statements that Mackey makes need to be qualified. The Mini was made over 40 years. Those awful 1959 door latches were upgraded many times over the life of the car. The 1999 Mini's (for example) has completely modern-style door latches, airbag, collapsible steering column, crumple zones, padded dash, runflat tyres, four wheel disk-brakes...you name it. Using Mackey's statement without considerable additional analysis and taking the car over it's history of design revisions is GROSSLY misleading. Just because you can find some guy who makes a ridiculous sweeping statement like that in print - doesn't make that comment something we should put into the encyclopedia. The 1999 Mini fully met European safety standards. Putting Mackey's quote out there "as is" and without considerable qualification is a downright misleading lie!

I could go on - but to dump a chunk of poorly written, badly formatted, incorrect (or at the very least, highly misleading) text into the middle of a featured article and expect everyone else to come along and happily clean it up for you is asking a lot. So I opted to "fix things" by removing the new section which (as it is) offers very little gain for a heck of a lot of loss. Please feel free to put it back when you've raised it to a reasonable standard. Meanwhile - I'm exercising my right as an editor to re-remove it because that's a lot easier than trying to patch up what appears to me to be a total loss.

SteveBaker (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast and detailed response, SteveBaker

1. IMO, it does. Reform the text -using the info provided by the refences- if you think it does not comply with WP:MOS.

2. IMO, you are wrong. Please cite examples.

3. Sorry, sir, but your assumptions are wrong. Yup: He said: "far", not "fire". You can buy a copy of the book if you want to check that fact.

4. Thank you for the info. I am going to improve the citing style.

5. I see no sources for your point. I provided a source. AFAIAC you said nothing. And the quoted fact is that a recognised expert said this and that about the Mini, not what "really" happened with the marketing of the Mini. Trying to figure out what "really" happened would fall into WP:NOR. I am a bit surprised to have to remind this fact to such an experienced editor as you.

6. The Issigonis text has a crystal clear context: Is a quote about the Mini uttered by its designer. This is the perfect place for that quote. Plase present your arguments if you think the opposite.

7. Where are your sources for that (alleged) lacth improvement?. Please, quote: I am open to buy books about the Mini and to get educated about this car. "The 1999 Mini fully met European safety standards" Where are the sources for this interesting assertion?. Where are the sources for the rest of your assertions?. Where, please?. I would like to add those sources saying that the Mini is a safe car to the article, because I suppose all of us want the whole picture about the safety of this car.

Plase recheck my cite format improving. Your referenced facts about the safety of this car are welcome. Randroide (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Although a Safety section would not be out of place in the article I don't think that which is presently included is acceptable.

First, be very, very careful about quoting Issigonis. He was well known, as stated in his biography, for making often outrageous statements to journalists to see how they re-acted. eg "Cars don't need heaters. If it is cold you put your coat on." (About the Morris Minor I think)

I have never heard of Murray Mackay but doubt very much he is "Britain´s first automobile accident investigator". Vehicle accidents have been investigated since the 19th century.

The section quoted on the Mini is, to say the least, odd. It falls into the old mistake (deliberately?) of taking past events and using them in today's context. In the 1950s nearly all cars had exposed filler caps that could, just possibly, in an accident be sheared off and there are "electrical sources" all over a car, but most accidents still do not end in a fire in spite of what is shown in TV and Hollywood dramas. As SteveBaker points out, the Mini door locks were continuously improved over the years, look at a parts manual if you don't believe it. There is no such thing as a "far wall" in automotive engineering. Any car door, if sufficiently "stretched", will burst open but the author then conveniently forgets that there are seat belts to keep the occupants in the car. I note that the author the book, Nicholas Faith" seems to specialise in disasters having written books on air crashes and rail crashes as well. Malcolma (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Malcolma.

Regarding your points:

1. If Issigonis used to make outrageous statements that was his problem, not ours. He said this or that, therefore it is quotable.

2. I presented a reputable source -A Channel Four book- stating that yes, Mr. Mackay is the first British accident investigator.

3. The Mackay quote is cited in a 1997 book, Which? still lists the Mini as a "worst" car safety-wise. The reason for this beating on a 1950s design: The Mini has been produced until the year 2000. No one protests about the safety of the Ford Anglia or the Vauxhall Velox, because those cars stopped being produced in the 1960s.

Moreover: Sources stablish the notability and oportunity of criticism, not the opinions of editors, and sources speak loud and clear about the Mini. OTOH, if you have sources presenting your views about criticisms on Mini´s safety as "taking past events and using them in today's context", please feel free to add those views.

To sum up: The "old mistake" -if any- is commited by reputable sources, and therefore could and should be cited and sourced in the article.

4. I see no sources for your "door improvement" claim. Please add those sources to the section. ISBNs, please.

5. There is no such thing as a "far wall" in automotive engineering...the source I presented seems to prove the opposite.

6. "Any car door, if sufficiently "stretched", will burst open but"... no one said the opposite, and I am not the one making comments on the Mini doors, but Mr. Mackay. If you have a source defending the Mini latches, please add it.

7. "I note that the author the book, Nicholas Faith" seems to specialise in disasters having written books on air crashes and rail crashes as well". Fine. And what is your point?.

Randroide (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a very strange idea of how to write an encyclopedia. You are taking the line that if you can prove that something was said by someone at some time in the past then it belongs in the encyclopedia unless someone else can prove that it wasn't said. Sure, that's the standard for verifiability - but you are missing the twin principle of NOTABILITY. That Issigonis said something in jest (which he did a lot - especially if you quote him without surrounding context) - is not necessarily notable, even if it's true that he said it. He also said that he didn't think women should drive cars because they couldn't do so safely...that didn't stop him from designing cars that women would like. Your safety guy may or may not be a good safety expert - but he was speaking in a narrow context - possibly about just one model year of the car. Whilst I don't doubt that he said it (although I'd be VERY surprised that a real, live car expert of any kind would talk about a "far wall") - we don't have to provide evidence that this was not a notable comment - it's not notable because it's not being said by a Mini expert - and it cannot possibly apply to cars after the mid-1960's when the concept of passive safety happened to take off. I don't need to prove that Mini's were improved beyond what he said because it's self evident in the fact that Mini's were still being sold as late as April 2000 when the last one rolled off the production line...it would have been totally illegal to sell a vehicle with the flaws that your "expert" refers to. So we know - for sure - that your expert must have been speaking very narrowly - possibly he was wrong - possibly he was talking specifically about (say) the Mk I Mini. We don't know (at least from the information you have provided) that he was speaking about all Mini's - but we do know that if he was speaking in that way that he MUST have been wrong.

I don't see how you can possibly deny the truth of that argument - so why do you persist in putting CLEARLY untruthful (or at least very misleading) information into this article? Verifiability isn't everything. Notability and truth and not quoting out of context and appropriateness are all things that matter here. I have a reference that PROVES that George Bush was the president of the USA in 2006 - but does that mean that I should put this fact into the Mini article? No! Of course not - it's simply not an important fact about the Mini. That your so-called "expert" said something (possibly about a single car - possibly about a single model year) is simply not relevent here - unless we have enough context.

Think about what you are doing here. There are MANY Mini's built in the late 1990's still on the road around the world. If someone comes to Wikipedia to find out about them because they are thinking of buying one and they read your section that says that they have lethally dangerous door locks - when in fact it would have been flat out illegal for Leyland to sell a car with door locks like that in 1990. Are you doing that person a favor by insisting on putting this quote here? No!! You are telling a flat out untruth because you are implying that the door lock issue applied over the entire lifetime of the car.

So - let's play your game here. You say that the Mini had dangerous door locks. Prove it. Where is YOUR verifiable evidence that British Leyland sold cars with illegally defective door locks in April 2000.

SteveBaker (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Randroide answers to User:SteveBaker

"but you are missing the twin principle of NOTABILITY."

No, Sir. You are missing it: The notability has been stablished by a safety expert citing that quote. Sources stablish notability, not editors like you and me.

That Issigonis said something in jest (which he did a lot - especially if you quote him without surrounding context) - is not necessarily notable, even if it's true that he said it.

Murray Mackay, Nicholas Faith (the author of the book) and the Channel Four disagree with you.

Those are "sources", you are not.

He also said that he didn't think women should drive cars because they couldn't do so safely...that didn't stop him from designing cars that women would like.

Non sequitur.

Your safety guy may or may not be a good safety expert - but he was speaking in a narrow context - possibly about just one model year of the car.

No. They just wrote about "the Mini", and that includes the whole Mini range until 1967 (please see the time framing I added to the quote, suggested by the valid point you raised here).

Incidentally: It is not "my" safety guy. It is recognized safety expert. Please avoid personal remarks.

Whilst I don't doubt that he said it (although I'd be VERY surprised that a real, live car expert of any kind would talk about a "far wall")

Buy the book and have the surprise of your life.

it's not notable because it's not being said by a Mini expert

Of course it is notable: He´s a safety expert talking about the safety of the Mini. Moreover: Who´s a "Mini expert"?. Please, tell me.

and it cannot possibly apply to cars after the mid-1960's when the concept of passive safety happened to take off.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Take a look at Passive_safety#History. I know what I am talking about: I wrote most of that section.

We don't know (at least from the information you have provided) that he was speaking about all Mini's - but we do know that if he was speaking in that way that he MUST have been wrong.

Editor´s ideas are not reason enough to disqualify valid sources. If (lets imagine) Murray Mackay is wrong about the Mini and other experts disagree with him, then we would have them a debateabout the Mini, a notable debate.

I don't see how you can possibly deny the truth of that argument

I just explained you: Wikipedia-wise, it is irrelevant if Murray Mackay is right or wrong about the Mini, because Wikipedia is not about factuality, but about verifiability. And it is a verifiable fact that a safety expert named Murray Mackay said this and that about the Mini.

Please note that I did not write "the Mini has bad passive safety", but "this and that source said that the Mini has bad passive safety". If you have sources saying that the safety of the Mini is A-OK, I invite you to add those sources.

No! Of course not - it's simply not an important fact about the Mini.

Sorry, sir, but nowadays "Safety" is one of the departments that define a car. Of course that the safety of the Mini is a notable point.

Think about what you are doing here. There are MANY Mini's built in the late 1990's still on the road around the world. If someone comes to Wikipedia to find out about them because they are thinking of buying one and they read your section that says that they have lethally dangerous door locks - when in fact it would have been flat out illegal for Leyland to sell a car with door locks like that in 1990. Are you doing that person a favor by insisting on putting this quote here? No!! You are telling a flat out untruth because you are implying that the door lock issue applied over the entire lifetime of the car.

Uhmmm, well. You made a point. If you are so worried about "implications" I am going to add the relevant time frame to that quote.

So - let's play your game here. You say that the Mini had dangerous door locks. Prove it. Where is YOUR verifiable evidence that British Leyland sold cars with illegally defective door locks in April 2000.

I never added the line "British Leyland sold cars with illegally defective door locks in April 2000", because I have no source for that assertion. Moreover: British Leyland vanished in 1986.

In this venue we do not play "my game", but the "Wikipedia game". I suggest you to visit Wikipedia:Check_your_facts where you´ll be able to read this:

Of course, if material is factual, i.e. substantiated and cited, be extra careful about deleting. An encyclopedia is essentially an organized collection of facts, so consider each fact provided as potentially precious.

Please note that you deleted a whole section with 9 sources. AFAIK that´s against Wikipedia policies.

Finally: It´s not just Murray Mackay. It is Murray Mackay PLUS Which? PLUS Road accident statistics on a model-by-model basis telling us that Mini´s passive safety was bad. Three sources telling us the same history abou the Mini, sir.

Thank you for your attention. Randroide (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A more minor complaint - the section seems to imply that the 1984 change to 12" wheels "to improve braking" disproves the assertion that the Mini had excellent brakes from its inception. The reference says only that the change enabled *larger* brakes - which might well be for other reasons than increased braking effort. Any increased braking effort - and indeed the possibility of using 12" wheels on a Mini at all - would be due to the advances in tyre technology between 1959 and 1984. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point, Ian Dalziel. I am going to remove that line. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

See and listen to Murran Mackay dissecting the passive safety of the Mini . Seems that -yes- Mr. Mackay indeed does exist and has not very good things to say about the Mini Randroide (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

He's already mentioned in the 'Safety' section of the article as being a safety researcher critical of the Mini's passive safety. -- de Facto (talk). 11:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, FeFacto, I know. In fact I created that section. I pasted the link to the video because I had to read here (see above) doubts about the existence or relevance of Mr. Mackay and his assertions about the Mini. Randroide (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Section for discussions, and 1 suggestion. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mini at the Internet Movie Cars Database

  I don't think we need such a link - but if we did, this is a much more comprehensive list than IMCDB. SteveBaker (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  That page on miniownersoftexas.org is using IMCDB as its only reference, and in most cases the text seems to be just a description of the primary-image from IMCDB. (Sorry to be negative, as you seem to be that wiki's webmaster, but I don't see how that specific page could possibly be considered a "much more comprehensive list"?)

  Back to my original suggestion: the link could be used simply as a citation (for visual confirmation and context), or specific models could be linked (examples below). T'was just a suggestion for an interesting site. Up to whoever all are the FA creators/maintainers here. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Riley Elf at the Internet Movie Cars Database
  • Mini 1275 at the Internet Movie Cars Database
  • Mini Cooper at the Internet Movie Cars Database
  • Mini Clubman Estate at the Internet Movie Cars Database

While I recognize the page is "Mini", given the number of redirects from badge-engineered versions, is it too much to ask for just one picture of each variant? Del the non-Mini, for instance... Trekphiler (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that in the Mini section on page 136 of A-Z of Cars 1945-70 (Michael Sedgwick, 1986) it is stated that "Minis were marketed at first under the Austin and Morris names, until "Mini" became a marque of its own in 1969". This doesn't seem to rate a mention in the Mini article. I would have thought it significant. GTHO (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a separate page covering the Mk I Mini, besides the section that exists in this article. I think it makes sense to merge them. Hethurs (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Object - The problem with a merger is that this article is already too long - and arguably would benefit from being split up into multiple articles...perhaps on a 'Mk I/II/III/later' basis. I already shrank this article once by pulling out the modern MINI and Mini Moke stuff. If we merged in the Mk I Mini article, the result would be WAY too long and would switch from the more approachable/readable style of the present article into a very turgid list of Mk I minutia from the other article - then back into a readable style for the remainder. That would suck pretty badly.

If we must do anything, we might consider making separate Mk II and Mk III articles so we can shrink this article down to a more reasonable size...but then I doubt that we have enough uniquely Mk II and Mk III information to carry that off either.

The information in the Mk I article is so much more detailed than we have for the other Mini variants - detailed to the point where it's getting arguable whether it should be in Wikipedia at all. The Mini is one of the world's greatest all time cars - so it deserves detailed coverage - but all that minutia in one gigantic article would be utterly indigestible.

So I argue strongly against a merger (although you might maybe be able to talk me into an AfD for Mk I Mini on the grounds that it's just too much). If a merger went through - I'd bet that all of the Mk I stuff that was pulled across would be deleted within a few months (almost nothing in that article has references - and most of it would be pretty tough to reference properly). We'd also be quite likely lose our little gold Featured Article star along the way because the merged article would be pretty terrible to start with.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. I completley agree that it would be a shame to lose the Featured Article status, but featured status doesn't preclude further improvements. I also completely agree that the page is already quite long. Nevertheless, I do still think that something needs to be done. Now that I've been using Wikipedia for a while, navigating around it has become easier and I've become more used the two-page arrangement that we have here. But when I FIRST started using Wikipedia, looking for information on the classic mini, this multi-page situation was confusing. The structure of the encyclopedia as a whole and navigation around this part of it in particular isn't that intuitive. My first experience didn't leave me with a good an overall impression of Wikipedia. My first impression was that Wikipedia was inconsistent, not very well thought out and thus of dubious value. On balance, I think that the merge is the best solution, giving an article that is better suited for inexperienced Wiki-users, i.e everything on the original classic mini in one place. I suspect that some of the MK I text repeats itself across the two pages, so it might not grow that much. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the length of the existing article could be useful reduced without affecting its quality. So I reckon it is possible to merge the two and feel that it is sensible to do so, but I appreciate that it would be quite a big job and that not everybody will agree ! Hethurs (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been three weeks - we have no consensus (1 support, 1 oppose) - so the status quo remains. I'm removing the ugly merge tags at the tops of the articles. SteveBaker (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not persuaded that the Status Quo is the right solution. Having two pages with information on the Mk I Mini is i) messy and ii) confusing. Despite the objection to making that merger, apparently on the grounds of article length, I note that we've still got a section on the BMW mini in the article that doesn't really belong there. I also note that a photo of the mini-metro has just been removed, so if the mini-metro doesn't belong here neither does the section on the BMW mini. This topic really does need to be sharpened up, despite its featured article status. How on earth did it acquire that status ? Wikipedia Standards seem to have slipped. I don't think I'd rate it above a B at the moment......Hethurs (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ship of Theseus was referenced within the "Minis in the United States" section, and just removed.

(see here for the last edit with it in: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mini&oldid=219444830http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mini&oldid=219444830

I think it should be kept - it's a valid point and expands user knowledge should they follow the link. Any other comments?

--.../Nemo (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Another contributor's edit summary objects to alternating the images right and left in the article, and he has returned them to the right-aligned stack they were in before I rearranged them to alternate.

My rearrangement was intended to relate each image more closely to the relevant text, and also to make the layout more attractive. I took as my guidelines:

• WP:MOS "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani).
• WP:MOS "See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Avoiding image 'stackups' for how to group images and avoid 'stack ups.' "
• WP:Picture tutorial "One of the problems many users of floating images hit is that multiple images sometimes 'stack up' vertically, particularly with large screens and wide images. The best solution to this is simply to add more text, but this sometimes is not possible..." and "Perhaps the easiest way is to make floating images alternate left then right; this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way".

The other contributor says alternated images "look crap" in low resolution, whereas apparently stacked images don't.

Thoughts? Writegeist (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Images should alternate left-right unless there is a truly compelling reason to do otherwise. As for Steve's concern about resolution, it looks fine to me alternating at 800x600 and at 1900x1200.--Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

When they are staggered, the text becomes really hard to read - you get these narrow columns of text with just a handful of words on each line - it looks truly horrible. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd regard the Beetle as a rather earlier beast. Midgley (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Wasn't the Beetle designed and first manufactured in around the 1940's? It was one of VW's first models after WW2, after the British Army rescued them from collapse (Ivan Hirst)..... Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently, an article in a Bulgarian website cited some other sources that the Mini design was actually intended for the VAZ Oka. Link: Website (in Bulgarian) and here is the Russian source: Oka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.89.2 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's intresting - I never knew anything about that.....Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mini was a cultural icon and shows up in movies such as The Italian Job (1969), in which 3 Mark I Austin Mini Cooper S's are used in a gold bullion robbery; in The Bourne Identity (2002) as a beat-up but surprisingly capable vehicle for a car chase; Goodbye Pork Pie (1981) where a yellow Mini 1000 is used to travel the length of New Zealand, or in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) as a collectible fashion icon garaged alongside other classic sports cars. It has also featured in television shows such as Mr. Bean and (as the Mini Moke) in The Prisoner.

If i'm not mistaken, isn't pop culture mentions a violation of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions page?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a violation but (This is personal opinion here) would'nt it make the article more enjoyable to read if it had these references? I've seen other articles on Wikipedia that have these references. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea, someone could make timeline that represents the names (marques) in timeline, was the last mini Rover Mini? Its hard to follow the name changes with this long article--Typ932 ^T·C 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What about a mention in the article about the many Mini clubs around the world? Any objections? Would this sound too like an advert to join a club? Is there already a section/mention on there and I'm wrong? Please reply. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the Wikipedia external linking policy lays out Wikipedia guidelines for such a link. But of course, if some Japa-lover doesn't like the idea of linking to proper enthusiats who don't simply deface the car with horrid bodykits, it's a matter of Wikipedia editor consensus whether Mini clubs should be listed. I support linking up civilised people. Nevard (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded this photo, but now I see that the article is already pretty well illustrated.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I note there is no mention of a lot of famous people that owned minis, Enzo Ferrari and Steve Mcqeen being two examples off the top of my head. Could this be expanded upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.101.213 (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And Alex Dafel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.57.75 (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In the "Minis in the United States" section, it says:

The 'A'-series engine, contrary to popular belief, was fully compliant with federal and state emissions standards, as shown by the Austin America which was sold in the United States until 1972.

In the "Safety" section, it says:

The Mini was withdrawn from the North American market because it could not meet the 1968 U.S. safety regulations[62][67] and more intense emission standards,[68] and was never updated to comply with those regulations.

There is an apparent contradiction here. Logically, it seems to be that it can be resolved by:

a. deleting part or all of one of the statements.

b. adding a clarifying statement that resolves or avoids the apparent contraction.

An example of b. above could be that BMC deemed that it needed more than the 'A'-series engine in the American market for the Mini to be profitable. Another example would be to add that Austin America group paid for the necessary modifications, but that these weren't or couldn't be shared with the Mini folks. Still another (which resolves the contradiction in the opposite manner) is that there are technical differences in either the use of the 'A'-series engines in the Mini and the Austin America that results in one passing and the other not. Still another is that the emissions requirements are somehow functionally different for the Mini and the America. I have no idea if any of these are true, however.

In any event, I think this needs to be resolved for the benefit of the otherwise potentially confused reader.

Tpzahm (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)tpzahm

According to the BMC ADO16 article, the Austin America was fitted with a special version of the 1275cc A-Series engine modified to comply with the 1968 emission regulations. This is also alluded to here. For whatever reason, maybe technical, maybe cost-related, similar modifications were not done to the Mini's engine, and hence it had to be discontinued in the USA in 1968. I suggest deleting the statement about the Austin America since it incorrectly implies that all A-Series engines were compliant with the 1968 legislation, and isn't entirely relevant to the Mini story. Letdorf (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

I made Book:Mini - including this article and a bunch of others related to the topic. If you haven't been following the Wikipedia "Books" thing - it's a scheme by which related articles can be grouped together and turned into a PDF book for eReaders. There is also a convenient mechanism by which you can order a beautifully bound, printed copy of the book in either paperback or hardback. This one runs to about 150 pages and costs $15 in paperback or $22 in hardback. Everyone who ever contributed to this article is credited at the back of the book. SteveBaker (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Minis are definitely still in production! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10thdayoftheweek (talk • contribs) 23:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of Mini_(marque)? -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, indeed yes I was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10thdayoftheweek (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The title of this article is Mini, shouldn't it be the proper title for the article Mini(marque)? 2. If this article only covers specific products, i.e. those produced before the brand was split from Rover, then shouldn't the title be something like: Mini - the original two-door Mini model produced from 1959 until 2000?---North wiki (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, just above is a reader who is confused of what does Mini(marque) mean and seemed to think this is the article that should cover ALL mini products, as implied by its title.---North wiki (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point 1. This issue has arisen because Mini developed from a single model into a marque but the original two-door Mini was almost always just called the Mini (prefaced at various times as the Austin Mini, Moris Mini or Rover Mini and at times also sold just as Mini) and that specific model, because of its longevity and influence, is probably just as famous as the overall Mini brand. However in my view the most logical position is still for the overall marque article to take the name Mini, just as the main Land Rover article takes that name, despite that marque having also begun with a single product which has also for most of its life been commonly known just as the Land Rover (the Land Rover Defender) and is arguably just as well known as the Land Rover marque.

In my view some of the content of this article should be included into the Mini (marque) article, and other bits should be expanded into separate product-specific articles. There are in fact already separate articles for the Mini (Mark I) and Mini Moke. In my view products such as the Mini Clubman and 1275GT (1969–1980) and Mark III(1969–2000) also deserve and warrant their own articles. Of course that still leaves the question of what to call this article if the Mini (marque) article were just called Mini. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, I'm not sure it's actually useful to combine the Mini and (BMW) MINI into a single Mini (marque) article, as there doesn't seem to be much common ground, either historically or technically, which would justify combining them into a single article. I think the previous arrangement of having this article, plus another one covering the BMW MINI range is preferable. Letdorf (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

The Mini marque was not created by BMW and I don't see why it should be treated differently to other car marques on Wikipedia and not have its own article. It is clear that the Mini Hatch/Hardtop launched in 2001 was a replacement for the original two-door design, and one only has to look at it - interior or exterior - to see the visual similarities with its predecessor, despite its bigger size. The Mini web site itself makes this clear: . Rangoon11 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, of course the Mini and the MINI share the same marque, but that's really all they share. My point is that if you have one article covering the ADO15 Mini and one covering the R50/56 MINI, there's there's not much left to say in an article specifically about the marque. Letdorf (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

There is a shared heritage and a common origin. One could argue that VW-era Skodas or SEATs have very little in common with their predecessors. At least Mini has remained focused (largely) on small cars and retained a clear visual connection with the earliest models.

The Mini (marque) article currently does have excessive detail about two specific models - the 2001-2006 Hatch/Hardtop and the current Mini Hatch/Hardtop - and both of those should in my view have their own articles and the content in the marque article then much reduced. The marque article should in my view have only very brief content about each individual model. However that would still leave a substantial amount of product info overall in the article, and in addition there is information about origins, motorsport, production and development, concept cars, marketing and sales etc to include. IMHO it does provide something very useful to WP readers to have a marque article and that the marque itself is highly notable and deserving of an article. I concede that work is needed to content and probably article titles however. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, this article is extremely confusing, and until I was clicked the talk page and had the user above direct me to the current BMW-owned MINI, I was unable to find the article. The two articles should NOT be combined, however, I woulld argue that there should be a redirect link at the top of this article that offers to take you to the (BMW) MINI Marque article. (This article is about ... For the ... please see this article, etc). (Dninyo (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC))