Talk:Mini

Section organisation
Sections 2 through to 7 don't seem to be in any sort of order, other than the "Marks" vaguely being in chronological order. Should we have a paragraph or small section for each "variant" (e.g. Countryman, Van, Pick-up) in each "Mark" section that the variant was produced in? Should we keep them the way they are but move them to another part of the article to keep things in order? What are your opinions?-- Pineapple Fez 07:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also don't see why the variants section is between Mk 2 & 3, when most of the variants were created in the Mk1 era. and technically cooper and clubman are variants also. I'd also suggest a section for Aussie and Italian productions under variants.Yellowxander (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Under models, how would this look being in chronological order?;


 * Mark I
 * Long Chassis Mini's
 * Mini Van
 * Mini Estate
 * Mini Pick-up
 * Mini Elf & Hornet
 * Mini Cooper
 * Mini Cooper S
 * Mini Moke
 * Mark II
 * Mini Clubman
 * Mark III
 * Mark IV - VII Limited Editions
 * International Models
 * Leykor - South Africa
 * BMC/BLMC - Australia
 * Innocenti - Italy
 * Authi - Spain
 * Cagiva - Portugal
 * South America

I would think that 'Concepts & Prototypes' and "kits & Customs' would come under the model's umbrella too?.. Yellowxander (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote
The hatnote should state "currently owned by BMW", as for most of its history the marque was not owned by BMW. The distinction is therefore needed for historical reasons, not because it is anticipated that BMW will sell the marque in the future. The reason given for reversion of my edit - 'WP:CRYSTAL and non-NPOV compliant.' - was therefore not valid. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * But now it is. The British Isles are currently inhabited by the British??--IIIraute (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The UK has always been inhabited by the British, so that is a complete non-argument. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Buckingham Palace is currently the official residence and office of the British monarch.?--IIIraute (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So having failed with UK, you now change to British Isles. It is a nonsense sentence as 'British' means a citizen of the UK and the British Isles include Ireland. It is also a tortuous attempt at analogy.
 * 'Buckingham Palace is currently the official residence and office of the British monarch' makes perfect sense.
 * More relevant analogies would be "the Guiness brand is currently owned by Diageo" or "Volvo Cars is currently owned by Geely" however.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * well, then better start changing lots of articles now - best to begin with Buckingham Palace, as well as the current monarch Elizabeth II and the current Prime Minister David Cameron. good luck.--IIIraute (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly the worst argument I have ever heard made in Wikipedia. You are comparing a hat note with article leads which provide far greater context, including in each of those when the applicable status began.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * yeah, yeah.... worst argument: ; change it then.--IIIraute (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I took "currently" to mean, well, "currently", as in "maybe tomorrow it will not be owned by BMW". This is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:POV. The owner is BMW, period. We are not going to insert the historical legacy of the marque in the hatnote by making POV and CRYSTAL statements. This is not the function of the hatnote. From WP:HATNOTE:




 * So adding any historically-based attributes and qualifiers is not compliant with the hatnote guideline because the additional qualifier "currently" is a weasel way of giving details about the history of the marque itself, something that belongs in the article, not in the hatnote. In any case let's have the opinion of other editors. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 'For the Mini marque owned by BMW, see Mini (marque).' merely serves to create confusion, as it raises the immediate question as to whether the article also deals with the history of the marque prior to BMW ownership (i.e. from 1969 to 1994).
 * A clear hatnote would either state 'For the Mini marque currently owned by BMW, see Mini (marque).', or better still simply 'For the Mini marque, see Mini (marque).'. The latter was in fact the hatnote on this article until the recent edits, and is preferable. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reading the Mini marque article will clear the confusion hopefully. I don't think that in the milliseconds it takes to click to go from the hatnote to the marque article anyone would get lost or confused, but you never know. Also since the marque article includes pre-BMW historical details this means that even in a hundred years of BMW ownership we still could not mention BMW because the article includes pre-BMW information. This doesn't seem fair for the reader since most people when not looking for the original mini are looking for the BMW-related products. And I am speaking as a reader now. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole point of the hatnote is to avoid ambiguity, so I find it more than a little strange that you say "Reading the Mini marque article will clear the confusion hopefully.". And should we not write a hatnote which is most appropriate for 2012, rather than 2112. That seems to be "For the Mini marque currently owned by BMW, see Mini (marque)." I expect that a great many people do not even know that BMW owns Mini, they are interested in Mini cars not in the owner of the brand, current or otherwise.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was not clear enough. I think you are introducing an artificial ambiguity by pondering what happens to the mind of the reader when they see that the mini marque is owned by BMW. You claim that the reader will be confused because they will think: "what happened to the history prior to the BMW takeover?". This is highly speculative and artificial and it has nothing to do with the purpose of the hatnote. Remember the hatnote only directs the reader to an article. We should not artificially speculate about the reader's confusion regarding article content in the milliseconds it takes to click and go from hatnote to the target article. The current version of the hatnote is highly informative because it informs the reader immediately who the owner is and what article they are going to and any other information the reader may want will be provided by the article not the hatnote. And I disagree with your statement: I expect that a great many people do not even know that BMW owns Mini, they are interested in Mini cars not in the owner of the brand, current or otherwise. In fact I think that BMW caused a revival of the brand because of their engineering and that the people interested in the modern minis are fully aware of the value added because of BMW's engineering. The fact remains that BMW has redefined the mini. We simply cannot ignore that and pretend that the concept of the modern mini exists in a vacuum isolated from its creator BMW. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  03:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds rather like you wish to use the hatnote to push a POV rather than to be as clear as possible. I've heard no good reason why the hatnote shouldn't be "For the Mini marque currently owned by BMW, see Mini (marque)." - it is clearer and more neutral.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And you will never hear a good reason I am afraid. I am just an outsider who came in to offer my advice and now you hit me in the head with the pushing-POV hammer, even though you cannot disprove my reasonable arguments. I don't blame you. I have not heard a good reason from you except your own POV-pushing ideas and I saw your reaction coming. You are too invested in this to hear any reason. Despite your accusation of POV-pushing, this subject leaves me stone-cold. I could not care less about the subject, BMW or anything connected to them. I engaged only because I thought I could help to resolve the particular issue centered around the adverb "currently", not thinking clearly of the other personality-driven issues present and now I see that I entered a quigmire. I think you should listen to the advice of Dennis Bratland and disengage from this topic. It will do you and the topic lots of good. Meanwhile since I don't like getting insulted I will not engage with you further as this discussion has degenerated to a very low level and will be utterly futile to pursue it further, at least with you. I will wait for a third party's comments and if/when they come I may respond to them. In a wiki-based, consensus-driven environment this shouldn't be all that difficult to achieve. So let's wait for an outside opinion. I disengage from conversing with you further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's strange because you said above "In fact I think that BMW caused a revival of the brand because of their engineering and that the people interested in the modern minis are fully aware of the value added because of BMW's engineering. The fact remains that BMW has redefined the mini." - you have made it very clear that you do have a POV, and that you wish that POV to be reflected, bizarrely, in a hatnote.
 * I suggest you also re read the comments below, Dennis Bratland has not suggest that I disengage from this topic.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment was in response to this POV-push on your part: I expect that a great many people do not even know that BMW owns Mini, they are interested in Mini cars not in the owner of the brand, current or otherwise.. I hope you realise that this "expectation" of yours is nothing more than your personal POV which bizarrely you wish reflected in the hatnote. And please don't be insulting, I don't need to re-read Dennis' comments. When he tells you Both of you: a big dose of WP:DGAF would help so much here. and ...and try as hard as you can to not care who wins., I read it in the spirit of telling you not to try so hard to win and put so much investment on your part that you become blind to the other person's arguments, i.e. put some distance/breathing space between you and the topic. And if you think it is "bizarre" on my part to inform the reader via the hatnote that this brand is owned by BMW, well, that's as bizarre as it gets as your POV shines through. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all your creation Rangoon11, as the Mini (marque) article used to be an article about the new MINI (2000-), called Mini (BMW) before you changed it. It does make more sense, doesn't it: For the new MINI (2000-), see Mini (BMW). --IIIraute (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It probably makes sense to someone who is at every opportunity desperately trying to push the POV that Mini and MINI are wholly separate marques, and that MINI is a German marque invented by BMW in 2001. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of you: a big dose of WP:DGAF would help so much here. Stop caring whether it is or isn't. Get interested in the fact that the question exists at all. In other words, get exited about the opportunity to be an encylopedist telling a naive reader about a fascinating controversy. Worry only that you present each argument as charitably as possible and try as hard as you can to not care who wins. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not wish to add any fuel to the fire here (I've given my opinion) but I do want to draw attention to the immediately above suggestion "get exited" which made me laugh out loud —and was probably deliberate? Eddaido (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

ADO15 Amalgamated Drawing Office
I think that this is reliable and so I have changed the explanation in this article. This is my source: Model ADO codes. Eddaido (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversial move needs to be discussed
Today's page moves have been undone per WP:BRD. If the original contributor, or anyone else thinks that articles like this and Mini Hatch need to be renamed then the move needs to be properly discussed. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sucessor
In the info box, it is stated that the Mini Hatch is the successor to the Mini. While they share a name, surely the original Mini has no successor, and the new Mini is really a replacement for the Metro/Rover 100, given its size? Warren (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. indeed it is bigger, indeed it does not share any of it's parts, however it is called the mini. In the same way the original 3-series bmw and the current 3 series do not really share anything between them, The original 3 is more the size of the 1 series today. But it is called a 3 series, so it is on the same page as the original 3 series. Knowing this is a very sensitive topic for some reason I do not quite get, I ask myself the question why the current mini does not just reside under the 198?-2000 mini? It is in effect the successor to the MINI in much the same way that the mini cooper is the successor to the original mini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Programmasters (talk • contribs) 23:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

== The Mini Clubman and 1275GT were responsible for two motoring "firsts": they were the first vehicles to use a flexi printed-circuit board behind the dash instruments...Secondly, the 1275GT was the first car available with runflat tyres ==

Both 'facts' are incorrect.

- the first cars ever with a flexible printed circuit board for the instruments were the 1939(!) Chrysler Corporation cars. Printed circuits for the instruments were a long established standard by 1969.

- the first car available with runflat tyres was the Rover P6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.77.26 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I trust that you have sources to back up these claims. The thing about Wikipedia is that verifiability trumps truth every day. Having said that, the claims in the article to be first are not substantiated so I have removed them. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Perhaps you could help out the project by finding other problems in car articles (complete with sources of course!) --Biker Biker (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Dunlop Denovo wheel and tyre system was fitted to both the Rover 3500 and Mini 1275GT in 1973. According to Dunlop, the Mini was first. See original advert and Dunlop website but according to this press report in the Scottish Evening Times in 1973 it was the Rover that was first . Warren (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Mini → Mini (original model) – "Mini" is now commonly used to refer to the Mini marque (the subject of the article Mini (marque)), as is clear from a Google search. The use of "Mini" as a name for the topic of this article is no longer dominant enough to justify use of the title. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per common name convention. The original car has been around far longer than the current version and its mark on history is enormous. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that that was not your view just over a month ago in a discussion on the talk page of the Mini marque - Talk:Mini (marque). Rangoon11 (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So I'm not allowed to change my opinion? --Biker Biker (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, the original car was a singular groundbreaking design and innovative product worthy of a separate Mini named article. The current production "Mini" marque is a collection of vehicle sizes and types that are totally unrelated to the original version. They simply capitalize on a common brand name that is focused on extracting high prices, not the economy of the original Mini. Rather than one efficient automobile platform, there are now convertibles, coupes, larger-sized sedans, and four-wheel-drive SUVs within the "Mini" product mix. Indeed, already a hodgepoge of vehicles to satisfy more target markets, this brand could possibly be marketing pickup truck models in the near future, further diluting the Mini history and image! CZmarlin (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the new Mini takes its design cues from the original. The original is far more notable than the new one, NealeFamily (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a clear misunderstaning above, the Mini marque also includes and overlaps with the subject of this article. The Mini marque covers all pre and post BMW ownership (since 1994) Mini products sold under the Mini marque.
 * CZmarlin has given one of the worst arguments I have ever heard against a proposed page move, basically "I don't like the products now sold under the Mini marque so therefore don't want this article moved".
 * The only relevant issue is, what does the word "Mini" refer to in general useage? A Google search for "Mini" reveals that "Mini" is used to refer interchangeably both to a specific model and to the Mini marque and all Mini products. Which is unsurprising. Not only does the subject of this article not dominate, it is actually secondary in the results.
 * The situation here is analogous to Land Rover and Land Rover Series, where a single model developed into a marque. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support the car should be moved to make way for the disambiguation page Mini (disambiguation) to move to the prime location. There are many things called "mini"/"Mini" that are not related to these cars, and we should think about that as well. Such as female sanitary napkins, minicomputers, miniskirts, etc -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It seems perfectly natural to me, there are two very different vehicles both called Mini. The Mini marque is unquestionably derived from and capitalises on the reputation and unique identity of the original vehicle, but the original vehicle will forever be the Mini and occupies a unique place in motoring history. The latter is a series of completely different vehicles that simply use the Mini marque and some of the Mini's styling traits. The Land Rover comparison is spurious and I think may also need to be challenged, try Volkswagen Beetle and Volkswagen New Beetle. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there are considerably more than two vehicles which fall under the topic of Mini, I assume you are referring to the Mini Hatch. There are also the Mini Countryman, Mini Coupé, Mini Clubman and various others.
 * The VW Beetle is an incorrect analogy as it has not developed into a marque. That the original Mini is a highly significant product is not in dispute, the issue is what is the common use of the word "Mini", nothing else.
 * Views about whether those products produced under the Mini marque under BMW ownership (and that actually includes the original shape Mini for a few years) are "genuine" are interesting but irrelevant. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there is only one Mini, the Mini coupe, Mini Countryman and Mini Clubman are all derivatives of it. The BMW thing is a marque, they bought it as such and are using it as such on their car. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The current Mini range comprises the Mini Hatch (it is not called just the "Mini"), Mini Coupe, Mini Roadster, Mini Convertible, Mini Clubman, Mini Clubvan, Mini Countryman and Mini Paceman. A number of the cars share similar platforms, although the Mini Countryman is quite different and is a four wheel drive SUV.
 * None of this is relevant however, the issue is whether "Mini" is used so overwhelmingly to describe the subject of this article that it should have this title. I cannot accept that that is now the case, even leaving aside the non-car useages, it is clear that if one speaks of a "Mini car" today, in 2012, it is by no means clear that one is talking of the subject of this article. Many younger readers are in fact likely to only know of the current Mini products. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Google results are overwhelming, but I should add that one can find endless numbers of useages of "Mini" in other reliable sources used to refer to the marque, e.g. Autotrader,  Top Gear,  What Car?,  Which?,  Gumtree,  Yahoo! Cars,  Hertz,  Autocar,  Car Magazine,  Car and Driver,  Exchange and Mart,  Ebay,   The British Mini Club. WP has fallen out of line with reality and reliable sources. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon11, You very mistaken in your assessment, and you should not twist my comments. First of all, could you please show me where I state in my recommendation for naming the articles your interpretation that "I don't like the products now sold under the Mini marque so therefore don't want this article moved"? The facts are clear: not only was the original (one platform) Mini produced for 40 years with a total of almost 5.4 million units, but it also received significant awards, as well as recognized by a jury of 126 auto experts from 32 countries as the runner-up (after Ford's Model T) for the "Car of the Century". Are you claiming that these are insignificant historical achievements? Moreover, Google web page counts are not an authoritative method, see Google searches and numbers. On the other hand, you must agree that the current BMW Mini brand encompasses a variety of models that are unrelated to the original car. CZmarlin (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments above speak for themselves. And again in this post you are making points that are of no relevance. It is not disputed that the original two door Mini is a highly significant vehicle, so much so that it developed into a marque.
 * The engineering connection between the products currently produced under the Mini marque by BMW and the original model is also of no relevance to the issue of the common useage of "Mini" (I doubt there are any shared components between the current model of the Toyota Corolla and the original model, and that none of the design and engineering team were the same. Ditto the Volkswagen Golf. Ditto the Ford Mustang.). Rangoon11 (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rangoon11, You again seem to be avoiding the naming conventions and the guidelines that Google is not a resource for determining the name for an article. Moreover, your examples to continue the original Mini name for the articles about the new BMW Mini models seem misplaced. I may have missed the announcement, so please provide evidence of Ford marketing its Mustang as SUV models. Similarly, there is no break in the design direction and markets of Volkswagen's Golf. Therefore, rather than trying to bend the facts, please notice that the original (and historically significant) Volkswagen Beetle has an article in that name, while its revival models are not named that way. The old car's Wikipedia article name remains the same although millions of Google hits, as well as respected websites and automotive journalists, describe the modern cars simply as the "Volkswagen Beetle". Therefore, the current "common useage" of this name has no relevance and would not even suggest that the article about the original Volkswagen Beetle now be renamed to Volkswagen Beetle (original model) and the current model's articles (since there are two) changed to "Volkswagen Beetle". Moreover, please also note that I have expressed no opinion as to whether I like (or dislike) any of the old or the new cars; thus, do not claim my personal opinion about the vehicles has an influence on the naming of Wikipedia articles. CZmarlin (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Google is a very good indicator. I have provided numerous other sources however - Autotrader,  Top Gear,  What Car?,  Which?,  Gumtree,  Yahoo! Cars,  Hertz,  Autocar,  Car Magazine,  Car and Driver,  Exchange and Mart,  Ebay,   The British Mini Club - and can provide many more. You have provided no sources which support the argument that "Mini" is overwhelmingly used to describe the subject of this article exclusively.
 * The VW Beetle is not a correct analogy as I have already explained, since the Beetle has not developed into a marque. Mini is a marque, and the subject of this article was sold under that marque for a number of years. The manner in which the VW Beetle articles are titled is dubious however, since 'Volkswagen New Beetle' is neither the common or proper name for the topic.
 * You say that "the current "common useage" of this name has no relevance". That is in fact the complete opposite of WP policy on article naming. Common useage does not overwhelmingly use "Mini" to describe solely the subject of this article. Fact. An objective assessment in fact shows that the most common useage of "Mini" today is in relation to the marque. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Dab it; move Mini (disambiguation) here. As the earlier car's claim to the primarytopic crown is ebbing away over time, but newer cars can hardly claim that crown yet, and there are several other uses too, I think Mini should be a dab page. Arguments based on the earlier mini being earlier are orthogonal to what our policies and guidelines actually say. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Elf and Hornet weights
I'm having a hard time with "This resulted in a dry weight of 638 kg (1,410 lb)/642.3 kg (1,416 lb) (rubber/hydrolastic suspension) for the Elf and 618 kg (1,360 lb)/636.4 kg (1,403 lb) for the Hornet respectively." For any given year, the only differences I'm aware of are the trim (negligible weight), the dashboard (a few pounds heavier on the Riley) and the grille (a pound or so heavier on the Hornet). Maybe a two pound difference overall. Where are the other 48 pounds coming from? Is this accidentally comparing a Mk I to a Mk II? Does anyone have the original reference?&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Super luxurious customized Mini?
A company offered a Mini that outwardly looked like a standard model but the inside had wood veneer panels/dashboard, super plush seats (with stitching/designs that obvious mimicked Rolls-Royce), lots of extra. Anyone remember what company created this cars? I couldn't find it in the article but I think it belongs in it. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this article should extend to customized after-market models GTHO (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like Radford. Mr Larrington (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly the Tickford Mini,a one off special. Mr.Painless (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Mini production in The Netherlands
The June 2013 edition of the UK magazine "Mini Magazine" has an article discussing the production of Minis from CKD (completely knocked down) kits for the home and Belgium markets at Amersfoort. Would someone care to check this out and, if appropriate, add this to the article. I can scan and email the magazine article if you provide an email address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.71.208 (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See VDL Nedcar, where BMW is subcontracting the assembly of some Mini models from the second half of 2014 (see BMW press release). As it's a year away, there is no rush to pop it in the article yet unless someone has a sudden urge. Warren</B> (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is the modern Mini Cooper?
The Mini Cooper is still being produced. Wikipedia seems unaware of this. http://www.miniusa.com/content/miniusa/en.html I don't see this newer version in the disambiguation either. If there is coverage somewhere on Wiki, perhaps a link would be appropriate for the challenged reader (like me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

— &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; —  10:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Try Mini Hatch! Cheers!


 * ^ Or in other words ... that's a totally different car, a mere shadow of the original, legendary one. A shocking, knowingly deceptive nostalgic veneer over what is really just a BMW-produced copy of a Rover supermini (ie, a whole size class above the mini itself) prototype for which they retained the copyright when they pulled out of their ill-fated joint venture, leaving Rover itself to scratch around and come up with the awful, Tata-designed Cityrover. It's rather like VW's quite cynical New Beetle (which, being basically a Golf with a bodykit, is also far too large - the original Beetle being roughly pre-millennium Polo sized - has the engine and drivewheels in the wrong place, and is really just a way of separating impressionable hipsters from their parents' money), but not even produced by the same company. It warrants, here, maybe a brief text-only mention and link to its own separate wiki page ... nothing more. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Extra words in the beginning
Hi,

In the beginning of the article I can see 2 extra words, which do not belong to the original text, I guess.

Penis poopsock The Mini is a small economy car made by the British Motor Corporation (BMC) and its successors from 1959 until 2000.

Can anyone correct this?

regards


 * It was just petty vandalism. Cluebot reverted it automatically here.  You may be looking at a cached version of the page.  Thanks for pointing it out though.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Incidentally, you are correct in saying "Can anyone correct this?" - yes, anyone can.  This page is not protected (usually shown by a small padlock of varying colours in the top right corner of the page,) meaning that you can also edit the page.  Be bold, and edit away.  I've popped along to your talk page and added a welcome template for you, which although slightly impersonal sometimes, does include a few useful links to help on your path to editing.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

US Emissions?
This article initially claimed, some time back, that it was emissions that stopped US sales in 1968. I wondered about that at the time, and then it was corrected to state that it was safety requirements. As the same A-series engines was used in the Austin America which only started production in 1968, and in the MG Midget well into the 1970s when it was replaced with a Triumph power plant, it is incomprehensible that the could not get the Mini through the emissions requirements, which were NOT all that strict in 1968 - just an EGR valve, and (the Mopar solution to pollution - dilution) an exhaust gas air pump.

It was the safety. Emissions might have done it eventually, but NOT in 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.144.118.19 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Engine-to-transmission reverser gear
Did they really have to do that, rather than for some other reason? Seems like a strange thing to do instead of reversing the engine's own direction of rotation... the main engineering difference would be a new cam mould (to reverse the valve timing but preserve the overall air flow direction), then swap the wires around on the starter, adjust the points to put the base timing point on the other side of TDC, turn the fan backwards and possibly reverse the vanes on the fuel/oil/water pump (if they are turbine/fan blade types anyway). It's a bit of a fiddle for the prototype and means a little extra re-engineering before starting series production - but on the other hand, the solution they came up with involved having to make the flywheel and gearbox input cogs smaller, find a place for and design-in a mounting spur (with I would presume a threaded and drilled-through end for a thrustwasher, castellated nut and securing clip) and the cog it would itself hold... and sell a car with an engine that ran "backwards"...

Heck, actually, why not just use the engine as-was but change the cam so that the inlet valve became the exhaust, and vice versa, and change the mounting positions of the intake and exhaust manifolds? I presume they had to be partially redesigned anyway to fit in their new positions. The engine could still have run "forwards", then.

BMC / BL really was a place of bizarre working practices... A lot of genius design came about because of that, but quite a few pieces of outright oddness as well. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, clearest image I can find: http://www.minipassionmini.com/imagenes/cutaways/gearbox1.jpg
 * It is hard to reverse an engine. A _lot_ of things need to change, some of them quite fundamental (for a higher powered engine than this, you might even look at the crankcase stiffness for the sideways load on the main bearings). This is firstly hard to do, but most importantly it is just pie-in-sky ludicrous to think about changing the production of something as established as the A engine. The thing that BLMC found hardest of all to do ever was to change anything that was up and in production. I never worked on the A engine, but I did work on a production line (I used to design bits of production line machinery) alongside the A head machining line right into the '90s. It was like working in Jurassic Park, the number of dinosaurs roaming free. A continual rain of carbon soot from the cast iron head machining - played hell with our equipment. I don't know what a "cam mould" is and how it reverses timing, but it ain't that simple. (I do know how several big name companies designed and cut cams - they did it on harmonic design software that I developed for them.)
 * The Mini probably showed the heritage of its infamous "engine flip", when the engine was turned end for end. I don't know how this came about (I'm not a Mini fan) and whether the Mini was ever meant to use the A series or not. Certainly a non-crossflow A series with the exhausts on the front is never going to be cheap or compact to produce. With hindsight, it should have used "the Mini engine", developed from scratch with the best of '60s tech, not the A series of the late '40s. Certainly, knowing how long the Mini would have as a career, this would have paid back the investment. At the time though, it's an indication of how cash-strapped things were (and what a genius Issigonis was) that he didn't just design a compact transverse FF layout, he also halved the development budget by doing it with an existing and broadly unsuitable engine.
 * You might find layshaft interesting for a discussion of gearbox internal efficiencies. The Mini's idler gear added maybe 2% to the transmission losses, which looks like a reasonable bargain for the advantages that using the A series that way round brought with it. Yes, for an engine with the "front" to the RHS, it would be an advantage to run the other way round – and this stays the same whatever the gearbox, because only a two-shaft all-indirect gearbox is really credible here. Simplest solution is the "front" of the engine goes to the LHS, but this depends on which way round the exhaust runs. The inlets and ignition can move around a bit, but there's no credible way for front downpipes. One engine (the only one I can think of) that did run "backwards" as you describe was the Honda-derived unit in the Triumph Acclaim. Incidentally, the Rolls-Royce C range engines, big industrial diesels, managed to be effectively reversible in the other way, by being buildable with the driving end and flywheel installable at either end of the same block, with the crankshaft always rotating in the same way within the block. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

12" wheels
I see no mention of the introduction of 12" wheels, or date thereof. Any ideas? I know that the Denovo run-flat tyre on 1275GT was 12", but had very low-profile tyres, presumably of same rolling radius as 80 profile 10" tyres.

I gather that space was the limiting factor, mainly from subframe mounts, from memory. If so, what was changed to allow fitment of 12" on later models, or did they use suitably low-profile tyres?

Rob 78.32.118.192 (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Making it easier to get to the current model
I have made some changes so it is easier to go to the current model:


 * The disambig blurb at the top now clarifies that BMW is currently making Mini Coopers, and points to the page that covers the entire mark instead of just one particular Mini Cooper.
 * I have fixed the Mini Cooper page to be a disambig page instead of a redirect.

Samboy (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Design influence
The Mini is credited elsewhere with being the main influence on the Honda 600 and everything that followed. Does it bear mentioning that the motor and drivetrain layout of the Mini was pioneered by the Saab 92 and that design of the Mini commenced following the importation of the 92 to Britain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.20.66 (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Mini was certainly influential on small car design, though the Italians might argue about the Fiat 500 for size, but you'd need some references to support the above claim.<B>Warren</B> (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

My Uncle Charles (Charlie) Lane was the head mechanic on the mini design and told me a few stories. He was brought a sketch of each motor component on the back of a packet of Player’s brand cigarettes. He would then take this from Sir Alec and manufacture it. He was also the test driver and confessed that he crashed the one millionth mini as it was due to be delivered off the production line for the press so the millionth mini is actually the millionth and one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markycoxon (talk • contribs) 21:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

(album)
Cooper S redirects here. Any reason why Cooper-S isn't at Cooper-S (album)? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 one external links on Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207190240/http://www.mgcars.org.uk:80/carclub/sf020201.html to http://www.mgcars.org.uk/carclub/sf020201.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100805192734/http://www.verymark.info:80/?page_id=2 to http://www.verymark.info/?page_id=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090920235619/http://www.miniworld.co.uk:80/news/621_AOK_50th_anniversary__Mini_news_and_updates_article_282167.html to http://www.miniworld.co.uk/news/621_AOK_50th_anniversary__Mini_news_and_updates_article_282167.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313045007/http://www.minipickup.org/literature/viewitem.php?p=6519 to http://www.minipickup.org/literature/viewitem.php?p=6519
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101009113020/http://www.aronline.co.uk:80/index.htm?akaado15f.htm to http://www.aronline.co.uk/index.htm?akaado15f.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131207072554/http://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/5259405655/in/set-72157625162160850 to http://www.flickr.com/photos/aussiefordadverts/5259405655/in/set-72157625162160850
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091230190829/http://www.clubmangt.com.au:80/ to http://www.clubmangt.com.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326083117/http://www.atse.org.au/uploads/McLean%20J.pdf to http://www.atse.org.au/uploads/McLean%20J.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071008203617/http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?researchsrvf.htm to http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?researchsrvf.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208163053/http://www.which.co.uk:80/press/press_topics/product_news/which_magazine/car_safety040107_571_107212.jsp to http://www.which.co.uk/press/press_topics/product_news/which_magazine/car_safety040107_571_107212.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071116063017/http://www.dft.gov.uk:80/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/vehicles/carsmmrisk/carsmakeandmodeltheriskofdri1800 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/vehicles/carsmmrisk/carsmakeandmodeltheriskofdri1800
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090303184947/http://royalmail.com:80/portal/stamps/jump1?catId=90700753&mediaId=90500750 to http://www.royalmail.com/portal/stamps/jump1?catId=90700753&mediaId=90500750

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

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Split: Mini in motorsport
The Motorsport section is getting quite large, and yet is far from complete. Suggest splitting some of it off into a new page similar to Toyota Supra in motorsport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.88.232 (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Audi Sport WRC results, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.236 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130227065452/http://www.heritage-motor-centre.co.uk:80/ to http://www.heritage-motor-centre.co.uk/

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

mini van image
User:PVarjak has reverted my change of File:Mini Van 001.JPG to File:Austin Mini Van3222dg.JPG. My view is that File:Austin Mini Van3222dg.JPG is the better image because it has a cleaner background than :File:Mini Van 001.JPG and doesn't suffer from issues with glare.:File:Mini Van 001.JPG also has some odd patterns around parts like the edge of the window which makes me wounder if it has been over sharpened at some point.©Geni (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

<Gallery>File:Mini Van 001.JPG|Mini Van 001.JPG File:Austin Mini Van3222dg.JPG|Austin Mini Van3222dg.JPG


 * I agree that the Austin image is the better one. With regard to the "odd patterns" - I can see what you mean, but they look to me as though a poor algorithm has been used when reducing the image size.  Regardless - the Austin image doesn't have anything like them and would better suit the article.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Geni You neglected to mention that you had changed the original image (the yellow one) that had been there for years.  The yellow Mini Van is the better image because it's sharper (the Austin is a bit blurry) and it's also a bit larger (taken closer to the car), which displays much better when viewing the article's page.  It fills the frame much better.  Admittedly, the clean background of the Austin is a positive; but not enough of one to warrant the change in my opinion.  I don't see any evidence of odd patterns, etc. that you mention; and you did not mention any of those reasons when you made the original change. You failed to document it.PVarjak (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I see now that Geni is the 'author' of the new photo. I am not the author of the original, so have no dog in the fight beyond what looks best; and I think the yellow image shows better on the page.   The new photo expands to a larger size, which is nice for Wikimedia; but not as good for the article page.   If it had been taken two or three steps closer and more sharply, it would be a much better candidate.PVarjak (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter who the uploader is, nor who the person who changed it is, nor how long it's been in place - in fact if anything Geni is to be applauded for coming to the talk page rather than edit warring. According to WP:CARPIX the image to be used should be "one that clearly shows a vehicle relevant to the article without photoflash glare or other photographic faults, against a simple and contrasting background. Such an image is always to be preferred over a lower-quality image, such as one that shows photoflash glare or a distracting background"  Whilst I agree that a yellow van certainly stands out, the background is cluttered, and as pointed out there is a lot of glare on the roof, bonnet and windscreen of the yellow image.  You may consider the green van to be "blurry" but it's nothing compared to the jagged lines on the smaller yellow van that are visible along the bonnet, door & roof sill.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They are pretty much equal in sharpness if you view them at the same size (the Austin has a little motion blur on the wheels). The yellow car was shot at 	f/13. Thats high enough that would be diffraction limited if it was at the same resolution as the green car image. There is enough spare megapixelage on the green car that it can be cropped tighter if that is what people want (the wider crop is a purely stylistic choice).©Geni (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My first problem is that the original change was made without any notification or any accompanying comments. Yes, I guess it's good that he then came to the talk page.   I only really notice a flare at the corner of the roof.  The rest is negligible at most.  The background of the yellow van is not really cluttered other than showing pieces of cars in the background; but not a field of cars as in the other shot. Plus, the greenish cast of the ground merges with the color of the Austin van. Again, I looked at both as it appears on the article page and the yellow one presents better.  Furthermore, it's a well-known individual car.  It may not be the better photo in absolute terms.  I think it's the one that should stay.  My point about the authorship was that it appears as if someone is just favoring their own, newer shot.PVarjak (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're incorrect in your statements there - ©Geni used the edit summary of "switch to File:Austin Mini Van3222dg.JPG" when they made the edit which is perfectly good notification, unlike your own reversion which used no edit summary at all. It may be brief, but at least he informed other editors what the edit purpose was, unlike your reversion here which included no edit summary at all, and so no justification to merit the edit.
 * To address your comments here though, "The background of the yellow van is not really cluttered other than showing pieces of cars in the background; but not a field of cars as in the other shot" - the yellow van is surrounded by other cars in close proximity - this is kind of the definition of cluttered. The green van has nothing surrounding it, and in the far background a blurred crowd scene - which incidentally contains no other cars, despite your comment.
 * You may only notice flare on the roof, but other editors - ie me - see it elsewhere as well, and also other deficiencies with the existing image (when compared to the newer suggestion). You'll have to clarify your statement of "...the yellow one presents better.  Furthermore, it's a well-known individual car.  It may not be the better photo in absolute terms.  I think it's the one that should stay." - if you acknowledge that it's not the best image, why are you insisting that it stays?
 * "My point about the authorship was that it appears as if someone is just favoring their own, newer shot." - I agree, because it's better. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402171122/http://racingnetworkasia.com/pages/classic-mini-championship-asia.php to http://racingnetworkasia.com/pages/classic-mini-championship-asia.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801051923/http://www.austinmemories.com/page8/page36/page36.html to http://www.austinmemories.com/page8/page36/page36.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817094034/http://www.automobilemag.com/features/collectible_classic/0910_1959_2000_bmc_mini/index.html to http://www.automobilemag.com/features/collectible_classic/0910_1959_2000_bmc_mini/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209025952/http://www.austinmemories.com/page46/page46.html to http://www.austinmemories.com/page46/page46.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brandshatch.co.uk/calendar/2014/may/mini-festival.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.grassrootsmotorsports.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427101129/http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/motors/advice/tm_headline%3Drecession-proof-wise-buys-revealed%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D23171460%26siteid%3D63127-name_page.html to http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/motors/advice/tm_headline%3Drecession-proof-wise-buys-revealed%26method%3Dfull%26objectid%3D23171460%26siteid%3D63127-name_page.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Name of this article: Mini (1959–2000) instead of Mini
See Talk:Mini (BMW)--Tim Stamper (talk) 02:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a rather drastic move - I am aware of WP:BRD, but something like that might be worth discussing with the countless people who are involved with these pages.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. These unilateral moves must be reverted. Dr.   K.  05:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed (see above on this page). I tried to revert but can't do it.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also tried to revert it. Article names: Mini for the old models. and Mini (BMW) for the new models. I learnt that I have to discuss something like that. My mistake. Have a nice day!--Tim Stamper (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Thanks to User Number 57.--Tim Stamper (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that was swift. I was expecting a lot more rigmarole... Best regards,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003054039/http://www.aronline.co.uk/ado15story2f.htm to http://www.aronline.co.uk/ado15story2f.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615153350/http://www.histomobile.com/1/Mini/1969/-_.htm?lan=1 to http://www.histomobile.com/1/Mini/1969/-_.htm?lan=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119031420/http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/Review.aspx?model=759 to http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/Review.aspx?model=759&page=4

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Spring style has nothing to do with independent suspension
The fully independent suspension the rubber cones provided was almost unheard of in low-cost cars of the time. Removed since it is not cited and makes no sense at all. Independent suspension is dictated by the style of control arms or axles used, not the type of springs used. Whether the car uses solid axles or double wishbones or DeDions, each wheel must be provided with a spring. It can be a leaf spring, a coil spring, or even a rubber cone, but the type of spring has zero impact on whether it is independent or not. A double wishbone is fully independent, yet can use coils or leafs or even cones. A solid axle can be fitted with rubber cones or coils or a leaf spring. The only type of spring that influences whether a suspension is fully independent or not is the rare traverse leaf spring, as seen on the Model T and Corvette, and even that style is used on solid axles (Model T) and control arms (Corvette) with equal facility. If a Mini had fully independent suspension (I was under the impression it used a solid rear axle at least) the rubber cones had nothing to do with it.

70.20.41.199 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Mini used a trailing arm rear suspension mounted to a beam subframe. This is what made it independent, not the type of springs. 70.20.41.199 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Suez Crisis
The Suez Crisis did not take place in 1977. 49.199.245.167 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * random edit. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 02:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

2000 is NOT 21st century
There was no year 0. First century started year 1 and ended year 100 on the evening of 31 December. 20th ended 31 December 2000. Nmajoros (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Image
I uploaded an image this afternoon that I took of the Mini in August 2021, some idiot thinks the current image on the article is better than mine I strongly disagree with this idiots decision I would like my image put back on the article and I want it to remain there. Hlliwmai (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First, watch your language or you will most certainly be blocked. Second, the previous picture is much better - much less distortion from the wide angle lens, for instance.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  01:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I have a right to be pissed off I don’t like somebody interfering I put that picture on in good faith then some knob buts in and reverts my edit I’m NOT impressed at all! Hlliwmai (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What about other editors? Should they be pissed off when you "butt in and revert their edits"? Do unto others, my friend.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes but that is different especially if it’s these idiot’s that just choose to vandalise, I wasn’t vandalising I was merely trying to do something in good faith but clearly everyone on here are bitchy and they want things the way THEY want them not anyone else. Hlliwmai (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That had better be an attempt at sarcasm or I will lose yet another dram of my faith in humanity.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  20:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No that wasn’t sarcasm trust me Hlliwmai (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture
I think this article lacks a popular culture section. For example, one of the things many people immediately think about when they see a mini is Mr. Bean; which can be stated in the section. Aminabzz (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Transverse engine
"The front-wheel-drive, transverse-engine layout were used in many other "supermini" style car designs such as Honda N360 (1967), Nissan Cherry (1970), and Fiat 127 (1971). The layout was also adapted for larger subcompact designs."

The front wheel transverse layout became essentially the industry standard way of making passenger cars, not just subcompact cars. Anything that wasn't RWD or AWD was transverse front engine, front wheel drive by the late 80s. I feel like this statement kind of understates the huge shift the Mini created in the automobile industry. It makes it sound as if it just started a new trend among very small cars.

Idumea47b (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Names of all eight in the original prototype team
I was somewhat non-plussed that my edit adding the additional names for the member of the original team for the mini prototype was reverted with the comment "unsourced", given that I had included a reference to the Rob Golding's book on the Mini which lists them all (and that there was no source for two of the three names listed in the original wikipedia entry)!

I'd re-edited the page to quote directly from the book, as well as giving the exact page number. Mdovey (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mdovey, in your first edit you added a floating paragraph (starting "Jack Daniels (who shared Issigonis‘s enthusiasm...") which was totally unsourced - which is why I removed it. Look at the rest of the article and you'll see that references are added after each separate piece of content. This is so readers can easily verify it.
 * In your second edit you again added content without inserting in-line references after it. But worse than that, it appears that much of what you added was a direct copy from the text of Golding's book, which contravenes the Wikipedia copyright policy - which was why I have again removed it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my first edit, I added *one* sentence with the source for the content of the entire sentence states after that sentence, unlike the reverted one which gives no sources for at least half of the sentence! Mdovey (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)