Talk:Hillman Super Minx

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Does it deserve its own article?

I've been wondering whether someone would (or should) to give this thing its own article for several months. Does anyone have a strong opinion either way? In favour of a new article: it was a new shape, and was around, initially with a wrap around back window and later with a (Volvo inspired??) six light profile for maybe five years. It was characteristic of its time and place. Being slightly larger than the 'normal' Minx, it paved the way for the Hillman Hunter. And in my simple way, I find life simpler if, when in doubt, articles involving several models / shapes of car are disaggregated. On the other hand, the Super Minx was done on the cheap: the bits you could see were distinctive, but as far as possible, the bits you couldn't see came from the lighter Minx models. Then again, whether or not you (or I) like a car probably shouldn't sway the argument either way. And someone has set up at least one link (on the Minx page) in contemplation of a separate Super Minx page. Charles01 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've grasped the thorn again as part of the process of sorting out the remaining, neglected Rootes articles. I think it really does deserve its own article because it was marketed very much as a separate model, and (although this is, unless I find a reference, PoV and OR) I think it was also strongly perceived as "related but separate" at the time — certainly more so than, say for example, the Opel Manta and Opel Ascona were. – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six light

This redlink I've inserted because I think it's verging on jargon and could do with being explained. (And it's not the present article's job to do that.) Perhaps all that's required is a passage in the car body style article, although that may be merging with various other articles soon (such as vehicle size classification etc. — there's a bit of a mélange of such articles!) – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but no Sunbeam version of the Super Minx...

Kieran (or anyone else), I think I may be in danger of becoming excessively nerdy on all this. BUT I've a feeling that for continental European markets Rootes in the 60s were prone to badge as Sunbeams cars we think of as Hillmans. Does that ring any bells with you? One reaction is that they may not have sold the 'Super Minx' version in significant numbers outside of the UK. I think that's right. But we have now the evidence of wiki Commons that versions of the model were not unknown on the Continent (and apparently in Malta, tho of course that's rhd and probably could simply be supplied with UK spec cars). This may be a total non-issue, but it's a thought that got tiggered in the deeper recesses of my post-consciousness. Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. They certainly used Sunbeam extensively around the world. I've just never seen any reference to one of these in the usual places (books, websites). It's a shame if we have to decide that the correct thing is simply not to mention it (which kinda is the correct thing at this stage) because the lack of one is, in itself, a nerdy but curious marketing move.

Incidentally, I notice that in this article and the Sceptre one you've added some info in the thumbnail description. There is a guideline somewhere (and I hope we "know" each other well enough that you'll trust me on that without me having to dig it out! ;-) ) that suggests that having info only noted there is a bad idea. The info can too easily be lost if somebody comes along with a photo they prefer and pastes over the whole thumbnail tag. It'd be better to integrate that info into the prose. – Kieran T ^(talk) 11:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point and I've integrated (if that's the word) the caption into the text. In a way it belongs in the para about the face lift, but at that stage the way things are now we've not mentioned the Humber. So I put it in the para that first mentions the Humber .... I think probably the entire section could benefit from a rework at some stage, tho. Delighted to see (having just caught up with your note on the Arrow talk page) that you appear (more or less) to have volunteered: but of course, the more one looks in to it the more convoluted all the relationships appear. I don't know how successfully badge engineering confused the customers, but it certainly confuses me. (I remember driving someone's by then very old Hunter but I was never a Rootes customer.) On the broader point, if you take the view (which I do) that there are times when a picture is worth several thousand words then there also times when a caption helps to point that out and the place for the caption is by the picture. It's a case where I think one should on occasion reject 'one size fits all'. In this case, with a very short entry that's unlikely to be looked at by a large number of generalist readers in the first place, I don't really think it matters so much either way. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) Back on the topic of the Sunbeam: I'm hunting now, and it's a good thing, because it's introduced me to the fact that there was an Arrow-era Sunbeam Sceptre! With Humber specifications... which suggests there might just have been a Sunbeam, um, Super Minx. Looking into it. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the "more musings"... it is very confusing stuff, yes. I really can't recommend strongly enough the excellent "Cars of the Rootes Group" by Graham Robson, for anyone interested. My own copy is in storage but I'll be keen to dig it out at the next opportunity. It has model-by-model details, and marque details, in the style of his (better known?) "Cars of BMC" book. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful tip. MIGHT just get round to following up on that - at least checking out www.abe.com . I became seriously depressed trying to work through all the iterations of pre Audax Minx in the 40s and 50s. web based sources seemed very confused. And of course, there's even less on the Singers in the 50s which those older than us (from what you wrote of your grandfather's car) thought seriously interesting, I think. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well .... not ALL those older than us.

Heh. And... aha! This claims (albeit without backup) that the Audax-era Humber Sceptre was originally intended to be marketed as a Sunbeam. That would explain the sporty accessorising of all the Humber models I've ever seen (including the one I managed to get a photo of): dealers and users might well have been led to the Humber in the absence of a Sunbeam. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is Audax in this context? The link is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.195.75 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]