Talk:Mini (marque)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit warring

This used to be the MINI article (about the "new" BMW MINI - not the original Mini) - the content of this article was gradually changed to an article about the Mini marque . Now there are basically two identical Mini articles: Mini and Mini (marque). The goal seems to be to get rid of one of them → so the "new MINI (BMW)" becomes part of one single "original" Mini article with no own right to exist. The article has undergone continuous POV pushing and a dominating undoing of other editors work.--IIIraute (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The user Rangoon11 continues to edit war the content of this article →‎WP:3RR[1], removing sources [2], pushing his/her POV. This is already the second time this month. I have sent a warning to the users talk page which the user has removed. Rangoon11 ignores the content of 17 other WPs [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], calling them "inferior". Although some of the other language WPs are smaller, their editors still went through the effort to create a separate article for MINI (BMW), and they were obviously not influenced by this WP article. This consensus of 17 other WPs seems to represent the global perception of the marque. With 17 languages, the other WP articles do represent several billion potential readers. Patronizing the work of literally hundreds of editors of other language WPs and to discredit their work, is disrespectful and only seems to serve the purpose of POV pushing (see: talk above↑). --IIIraute (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No you are the one POV-pushing, and trying to impose changes to the stable version of this article through edit warring. The other language WP Mini articles are all greatly inferior to this one. Fact. I'm also rather surprised that someone who only yesterday was making personal attacks on this Talk page should now be accusing others of disrespect. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And you may be surprised to know that 60% of all Wikipedia readers in fact view the English-language Wikipedia: [20], more than view every other language version combined. Which I guess might be why you, a German, are here POV-pushing on the English language site. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Rangoon11 is also the same user who dissolved MINI(BMW) and moved it to Mini (marque) see:[21]. --IIIraute (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has in fact been at that title, stable, for a year and 2 months. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No it has NOT been stable. It had been stable until Rangoon11 started manipulating it. Also the Mini (marque) article (that originally supported the points I am making, and resembled the other 17 WP articles) has undergone more and more POV pushing since the article was started: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]....so far, everything is fine - for several years... to this point the article was still about the new Mini (BMW) only...... and then the pushing started: on the 20. November 2010 Rangoon11 started with his/her edits to this article → first edit: + Automotive industry in the United Kingdom[29]. From this point the article gradually changes towards personal (british) POV pushing → complete rewriting of the lead[30].... and on the 31. January 2011 the whole Mini (original) content/article was moved in[31]. Now the original article that had existed for many years had been completely rewritten..... the → ‎Original Mini (1959-2000): Internal link added[32], another little detail added[33][34]. Transformation complete.--IIIraute (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

...and then Rangoon11 asks user Warren Whyte for help [35] with whom he/she has been collaborating for a while...... with the result that a reference from The Guardian[36], is getting replaced with a reference from autocar[37]....Honi soit qui mal y pense.--IIIraute (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice link, but there was nothing "dishonourable" about my post on Warren's page, and I note that you have have just attempted to engage another editor in a similar way on their Talk page: [38].

Articles develop and improve over time. You only view this as manipulation because you (a) completely lack good faith, and (b) don't like the way in which the article has changed, which doesn't accord with your POV. It is also the case that many other editors have worked on this article over the past 14 months. The article was stable until your recent POV-pushing. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the Guardian source was low value, a blog piece from their comment section. An article from a long-established car magazine is far superior.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

NO, I have not. I did ask the editor to contribute to the talk-page[39], while you animated the other editor to engage with the edits of the article[40]

So that is for you to decide - what and what is not suitable for this article? As the article-history shows, you are constantly removing other editors work, and you have been involved in another edit-war just some days ago. Jonathan Glancey is the Guardian's architecture and design correspondent[41]. You animated another editor to undo my contribution again (edit warring). You did not improve the article, but transformed it into one that already exists → Mini. --IIIraute (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a couple of disclaimers. In the past I have found Illraute generally rude and hard to work with, and I have a fairly good history of collaborating with Rangoon11. My gut reaction was therefore obvious, but a moment of reflection reminds me that I much prefer the previous state of affairs - with Mini (BMW) covering the new hatchback model and clearly separating what are two completely unrelated vehicle. I prefer the engineer's to the marketer's viewpoint. While the original Mini was indeed briefly sold under its own brand, creating some sort of convoluted history of the Mini "marque" beginning in 1969 (while incorporating the 1959-1969 history) and thus creating a direct link to the New Mini strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Another disclaimer: I don't really care enough to go through past edits or sources to support my ideas - I feel that there are plenty of sources to support mine or the other side's viewpoint, and the only way to decide these kinds of matters is to take a vote or some such.

As a side note, I just returned from a two-day road trip on the mountainous and curvy roads of Vermont in a rented Mini Cooper, where I had a most excellent time (excepting the highly annoying and counterintuitive turn signal and wiper stalks). I don't have anything against the new Mini as a car, but there are limits to how much I think WP should be tools of BMW/Mini's marketing arm. Thank you both for your efforts, remember that these are just my viewpoints, and I think a vote is the only way to go - no censures, no blocks, no recriminations. Cheers,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having me... I also prefer the engineer's to the marketer's viewpoint - but how do you want to separate that, when the car is reduced to the Mini marque? There used to be an article from the engineers viewpoint - but that article was slowly dissolved and transformed into what it is now. With all due respect... Isn't that the point I am trying to make here↑? When the car is reduced to the brand - that's why & when one has to draw on someting stupid like Mini - MINI to show the differences!--IIIraute (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This still seems to be very confused. The ill-tempered debate seems to be flip-flopping between specific cars and the "brand". The actual specific cars are dealt with in different articles so what's the argument about? See Mini Hatch and Mini Countryman for example, which developed last year as this article was mixing up various models with company and marque history, so this article showing its long and varied travels as a brand or marque is quite appropriate with the models of cars being upgraded to specific articles. I think that the proposals to rename the pages elsewhere on this talk page are quite pragmatic but for some reason that has been bypassed and time is being wasted on warring.

Any suggestions of me being dragged into this debate is disingenuous to say the least. I have edited and contributed to this article over some time and want to see it to grow into a good NPOV article that does the subject justice. And I have no axe to grind by being neither a owner or driver of the original Mini or the C21 Mini. Imagine how good the article could be if editors collaborated with the article's content rather than fight over semantics and waste time on talk page research.

Before a vote goes ahead, there needs to be some agreement on what the vote will establish, and I'm not sure that some editors are clear what they really want from this article. Is it a company/brand/marque page or is it about BMW era Mini? Maybe that's what a vote needs to ask. If so it would be a bit strange as any other automotive article I've worked on has a single brand or marque page to cover its entire history. Warren (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This article has had a somewhat convoluted history due to its having begun as specifically about a single model, the Mini Hatch (2001 to 2006), which now (rightly) has its own article. At the time of that vehicle's launch it was common for the media to describe it as the "BMW Mini". As the Mini range has expanded this has become rather less common though.

Mini is a marque and clearly was not invented by BMW. The Mini marque first appeared in 1969. Even the concept of a new two-door hatch to replace the replace the classic shape two-door hatch model was not a BMW idea, Rover Group had been working on a project for a replacement independently prior to the take over. Capitalising the marketing name clearly did not create a new marque, and the official Mini websites make quite clear that the marques history did not begin in 2001 ([42]).

There is no Mini "company", neither under BMW ownership nor under the prior owners of the marque. Neither is there even a Mini "division" within BMW which operates all of the Mini-related factories, R&D facilities etc, nor was there such a division under prior owners.

In my view a BMW Mini article would therefore be highly artificial. At present I feel that the best approach is (1) articles for each specific Mini model (these could be deemed "engineers' articles" if you like), (2) a Mini marque article (which I feel should in fact be renamed to simply "Mini"), and (3) the general BMW articles on factories, facilities, finances etc, which can deal with the operational aspects of Mini R&D, employees and production within the context of BMW AG.

The Mini marque is more than notable enough to have its own article. If this article did not exist there could be no valid argument against its creation under WP policy. How this article began is now irrelevant, the article is what it is and has developed over time through the combined efforts of numerous editors over a lengthy period.

For me the question is therefore, should an additional article now be created which simply addresses the Mini marque under BMW ownership. For the reasons I have given above, at present I feel that this is unnecesssary. Were a Mini "division" or "subsidiary" to be created by BMW then my view on this would be different however. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No additional article needs to be created, as the article already exists. We just have to get rid of your manipulative editing on the original "Mini (BMW)" article (as shown above). There already is, and always has been a Mini article.--IIIraute (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

That is not a marque article but a model article. No current article of the type which you are advocating exists. If you are going to persist in repeated personal attacks then it is unlikely any progress will be made. I note that you have ignored essentially every point which I have just made in the post directly above. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this whole issue: How is it possible that for so many years there were two separate articles on this WP (a Mini & Mini(BMW)) article, that were fully compatible with all of the other language WPs (French, German, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Chinese and 12 other languages) until on the 20. November 2010 one single editor (Rangoon11) decided that he wanted it to be different and started with his manipulating edits. Since then (and later with the help of user Warren Whyte) the article has undergone a complete transformation, continuous POV pushing and a dominating undoing of other editors work. So, how is it possible that one editor (later two), have the power to work against a consensus that exists among the editors of 18 different language WPs? I do not find this acceptable. --IIIraute (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And I find your repeated personal attacks, and failure to engage in an actual discussion by ignoring all points made in rebuttal, unacceptable.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I favor having Mini be the main article, summarizing all variants over the years 1959-2012+ and not being weighted in favor of any one version or company. So the infobox should not lead with the BMW version or logo, or {{Infobox brand}}. There should be a custom infobox that provides an overview of, and easy navigation between, the the main articles for the classic Mini, BMW Mini, and the sub-variants. The navbox {{Mini cars}} should be expanded to include the BMW Minis too. In other words, both the infobox and navbox should have the same information, one for the lead and one for the bottom of the article. The bottom one has the extra feature of the timeline, of course. Category:"Part of a series on" templates provides numerous good examples of what this lead infobox would look like. I picked {{History of Mumbai}} as one example. This new infobox, and the lead paragraph, should make Mini be the main navigation point for each sub-article, including one on the new Mini. An like {{Infobox brand}} may be used in the sub-sections that cover BMW Minis, classic Minis, etc.

Mini (BMW) is probably the best title, or else BMW Mini or, perhaps, New Mini. Mini (marque) is a poor title for any ariticle, because "marque" is just a precious motor industry term that means "brand", and it doesn't disambiguate anything. The 1959-2000 version page needs a new name too. As far as I can tell, either Classic Mini or Mini classic (delete redirect to Nintendo Mini Classics, add hatnote) satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I've read four or five books on Minis and a fair number of news and magazine articles, and, at least in the US, that's what everyone calls them. Unless the terminology is radically different in UK English.

This would serve the reader who knows little or nothing about Minis and needs an overview before diving into the more detailed pages. The reader who already has a general idea about what the different Minis care can quickly navigate to whichever sub-page they need to find, by either clicking on the links in the lead or in the infobox.

MrChoppers is correct that this suits BMW MINI marketing very well. However, we should not violate WP:COMMONNAME or the principle of obeying sources and the common view of the general public just to spite the marketers. For better or for worse, as a social and cultural entity, not just as a BMW brand, the old and new Minis are linked in the public's mind and most sources approach the topic of the Mini by summarizing both the old and the new, before then diving deeper into each. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you right you are proposing that the article currently named 'Mini' be renamed something like 'Mini classic', and focused primarily on the original two-door hatch. I can fully support that. This article is then able to take the 'Mini' name however, and provide the overall introduction to the marque which you suggest - the content is already in this article, it is not found elsewhere in WP. I understand that you are then proposing an additional, new article specifically on Mini post-2001, titled something like 'Mini (BMW)'. For the reasons I have given above I feel that this is presently an unnecessary and artifical article which would overlap with the article then titled 'Mini', with the separate articles which now exist on each Mini model, and with pages such as BMW AG. There is no Mini division or subsidiary within BMW which can form the basis of such an article.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the Mini navbox does include post-2001 models, although it may require updating to add models launched over the last 12 months. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is organized by subject, and spawns articles following WP:Summary style. What does Wikipedia care how BMW organizes itself? The same issue came up in 2011 when Kawasaki Heavy Industries spun off the robotics from Kawasaki Heavy Industries Consumer Products and Machinery Company and created Kawasaki Heavy Industries Motorcycle & Engine. Wikipedia is supposed to move all our articles around every time a company redraws their org chart? No. We created Kawasaki motorcycles to cover what was, for Wikipedia, the main subject. There happen to be articles on some of Kawasaki's various corporate parts, but that's a separate issue. And then of course we have BMW Motorrad, which, like MINI, is merely one of BMW Group's brands, not a <whatever>. As far as I can tell from BMWs corporate reports, and in spite of the claim that they're subsidiaries, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Husqvarna, and BMW itself, are also mere BMW Group brands. So what? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually both Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited and Husqvarna Motorcycles S.r.l. are subsidiaries. And we do not have an article on BMW passenger cars, at least an all-encompassing one which includes the BMW marque, BMW brand passenger cars, factories used to produce BMW passenger cars etc.

At present we do have an article on the Mini marque - which at least some editors above seem to accept we should retain. Wikipedia needs to follow reliable sources and no reliable sources are able to address a Mini company or division, because such a thing does not exist. A Wikipedia article on that topic would therefore be pure synthesis.

This is leaving aside the issue of overlap. If we have a Mini marque article, plus articles on each specific Mini model (the 'engineers' articles'), plus the Mini concept cars article, plus the BMW AG articles which deal with operational, financial etc aspects, then a Mini (BMW) article would generate lots of overlap and add very little. The very name 'Mini (BMW)' is completely artificial, it is not a name which even appears in the Mini official websites. The common name is 'Mini', and the 'main subject' is cars which have the Mini marque.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So what if the article name is "artificial"? Wikipedia article titles are sometimes "artificial" as you call it. We have policy on that. At BMW Group.com it says "THE BRANDS OF THE BMW GROUP. BMW, MINI and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars." Again here it says the brands are BMW, MINI, and Rolls. Are we going to delete BMW Motorrad and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars because they're "brands"? No. See WP:SNOW. So who cares about Husqvarna either way? There is no basis for having or not having articles with reference to what is a brand or a subsidiary or a division. Wikipedia doesn't make articles that way so why are we still wasting time discussing it?

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Article titles, and the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style. Do you have any arguments to make based on policy or guidelines? The brand/subsidiary/division thing is a red herring, of no relevance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what point you are making. 'Mini' is the brand, not 'Mini (BMW)'. And the common and proper name of the brand is 'Mini'. 'Mini (BMW)' is neither a brand, a subsidiary, a division or anything which merits a standalone article. The Mini marque is highly notable however. Is anyone here seriously arguing that the Mini marque is not a notable subject for a Wikipedia article? I am arguing for the marque article being called simply 'Mini'. Neither the common or proper name of the subject is 'Mini (BMW)'. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NCDAB for my point. "Mercury (element)" isn't really the "common and proper name" of the element mercury. Casablanca (film) isn't the "common and proper name" for the Bogart film either. It's just that we put something in parentheses after the word as an aid in disambiguation. If we decide that Mini is the main article for the entire range, from 1958 to present, then Mini (something) has to be the name of the article about the new Mini. The thing in parentheses is there to help the reader know what the article is about, that's all. It doesn't have to map directly to anything "official". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, if the marque article were to be titled simply 'Mini', and a separate additional article were to be created for Mini post-2001, then a disambiguation would be needed and that would be a reasonable one. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2007 to present): "The engineering was done in the United Kingdom by BMW Group UK Engineering" ...actually, where is this imaginary "BMW Group UK Engineering" facility? because I am not sure that it really exists[43]. In 1994 BMW moved all Research and Technology for the MINI to Munich[44]. See: BMW Group[45] → Research & Development → Network → Innovation network - there is a big map with all the different development sites.... none of them is based in the UK: BMW Innovation network: BMW Group Research and Innovation Center, Munich; BMW Car IT, Munich[46]; BMW Group Research and Technology, Munich; Innovation and Technology Center, Landshut Plant, Germany; BMW Motoren GmbH Steyr; BMW Group Designworks, Munich & Newbury Park; BMW Group Engineering and Emission Test Center; BMW Group Technology Office Palo Alto, BMW Group Engineering USA; BMW Group Engineering, Japan..... yep, zero in the UK. All the research and innovation, technology, engineering and IT has been done by BMW in Germany.

There is nothing about this car that is done in the UK - apart from most of the assembly..... however, the Countryman, of course, will be assembled outside the UK, in Austria. Quite a phony article, isn't it?--IIIraute (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why we need marque page at all? just make two pages one for old and one fore new Mini (and disambiguation to the top of page) , if we put all to same page it will be very long, so better to have separate pages for both. I think we (wikipedia) dont need to follow or support ,manufacturers idea of that new one being a real Mini? -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the marque is a highly notable topic for a WP article. The article already exists - it is this article, and it is not particularly long.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I do agree with the other editors. The new MINI can not be separated from BMW. Apart from that; if there is a Mini (marque) article - that's how the lead should begin: [47][48] The "original" marque is dead ... because, MINI (present - new logo, new everything), is BMW only - nothing else. The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation.

Oh look - an original Mini brochure from 2000 showing a very similar badge to new Mini... not quite the reinvention then for the 2001 Mini as suggested above. Great collection of online Mini brochures! Warren (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of very demanding competition on the car market ...so why not be frank on this one: ...when people do spend an avarage of 20-35.000 USD (basic) on a small car, they do expect a BMW; because after all - there is a reason why the old Mini didn't make it. The differences between old and new are so extensive and fundamental, and the marque was modified to such a degree, that one can simply not speak of the same product (and marque) anymore. --IIIraute (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which you keep on repeating again and again (whilst completely ignoring all points made in rebuttal). However a great number of reliable sources, including the official Mini website, do state a shared history in the marque. Which is no surprise, since one only has to look at a new Mini to see the lineage. The Mini marque is highly notable for a Wikipedia article. Some kind of artifical Mini (2001) article, which is designed purely to show that the Mini marque was in fact created by BMW in 2001, is pure original research, and factually incorrect. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Virtually all car models move upmarket as they age. Compare the original Honda Civic with the modern behemoth. It's a well-documented marketing strategy. Aside from that, one reason for covering old and new in an umbrella article is to discuss the range of opinions as to whether the new version is "true" to the old, how they are similar, how they differ, and why. Consider flammable and non-flammable. Opposites, yet same article. Why? Because the reader must think about one to understand the other. And then we have the fact that so many -- most in fact -- sources today do cover both together, because together they tell a story. And we are slaves to our sources, not our own opinions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

BMW trade significantly on the last 50 year's heritge of the name, so the points made by Illurate above are wrong. There were even official Mini special editions launched in 2009 (see Evo article) to mark the event of the "company's" heritage. And worth noting that is some markets including the UK, the original Mini was still on sale in 2000 (by BMW, who owned it since 1994) so there was no significant break in Mini sales to suggest it wasn't a continuation, unlike say Maybach which indeed had quite a (failed) revival. There are some pertinent and specific article comments made above and these should be considered or fixed in the relevant article but they only muddy the discussion here.

Despite the argument, It looks like there is support for Mini to be the main article for the history and background (an umbrella article as Dennis suggests) to Mini and that all specific models have their own specific articles - and this should even keep Illurate happy as by default all BMW era models will have their own page.

Perhaps Illurate doesn't know that the Mini name had quite a success during the 1990s as a very British retro icon in the UK and several international markets, and that this was one of the reasons why BMW invested so much in the new generation Mini (and some concepts prior to the 2001 launch). The fact it took so long is probably because of all the other issues surrounding Range Rover, MG and Rover which were all owned by BMW at this time. Warren (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a vague attempt at a summary which I hope should be acceptable to all:

• Mini is a cursory umbrella history, from Issigonis until the current day, with hatnotes to the various articles.
  
• Mini (classic) covers the 1959-2000 model - incorporating the original Mini Clubman content. The parenthesis also makes clear that this is not the official name.
  
• The various new Minis have their own articles, with Clubman also having a hatnote link to the original Clubman section within Mini (classic).
  

When it comes to this kind of organizing, our main goal is after all to allow users to find the relevant page with a minimum of effort, with care taken not to be misleading or incorrect. It is also important to arrange things logically and so that corporate restructurings or namechanges won't necessitate moving around countless article names and wikilinks. Counter-proposals are welcome.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Also interesting to see that the original Mini was actually briefly called "Mini Classic", as seen in the brochure linked above by Warren.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Will someone please remove one of the big lies about the new Mini that is spread in this article: Mini Hatch/Hardtop (2007 to present): "The engineering was done in the United Kingdom by BMW Group UK Engineering" ...actually, where is this imaginary "BMW Group UK Engineering" facility? because I am not sure that it really exists[49]. In 1994 BMW moved all Research and Technology for the MINI to Munich[50]. See: BMW Group[51] → Research & Development → Network → Innovation network - there is a big map with all the different development sites.... none of them is based in the UK: BMW Innovation network: BMW Group Research and Innovation Center, Munich; BMW Car IT, Munich[52]; BMW Group Research and Technology, Munich; Innovation and Technology Center, Landshut Plant, Germany; BMW Motoren GmbH Steyr; BMW Group Designworks, Munich & Newbury Park; BMW Group Engineering and Emission Test Center; BMW Group Technology Office Palo Alto, BMW Group Engineering USA; BMW Group Engineering, Japan..... yep, zero in the UK. All the research and innovation, technology, engineering and IT has been done by BMW in Germany. Thank you.--IIIraute (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The brochure shows very clearly the difference between the original and the BMW Mini[53], so what upmarket moving as they age we are talking about. 2000 and 2001? It is very evident that BMW developed a complete new car.--IIIraute (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we have reliable third-party sources which state that the Mini Hatch was at least partly designed in the UK. Here are some more: [54] and [55]. Do you have any which state that the Mini Hatch was not designed in the UK? Rolls Royces are also partly designed in the UK too, so perhaps the map is wrong. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do[[56]]--IIIraute (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies I note that you were referring specifically to the 2007 Hatch. It is true that we don't currently have a cite stating that it was designed in the UK, and I am happy to lose that sentence in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A further point (this is the last) - the Mini USA website does actually state that Mini's 'were developed in the UK by the BMW Group's Development Division: [57] Rangoon11 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Then the MINI USA website is wrong, as neither a "BMW Group UK Engineering Division" nor a "BMW Group UK Development Division" does exist. The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation. "British Aerospace had planned to phase out the car by 1996", said a spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter.[58]. Quoting the New York Times: "Last Classic Mini Closes an Automotive Era" - "The Mini, the car that wowed the Beatles and symbolized the Swinging Sixties, entered automotive history today when the last of its 41-year pedigree, No. 5,387,862, rolled off the production line." - "In 1994, BMW bought Rover from British Aerospace, which was reluctant to make the investment to make the Mini comply with increasingly stringent European Union standards for safety and emissions. British Aerospace had planned to phase out the car by 1996 said a spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter. - BMW made a decision to put money in to keep it legal for another three or four years until they could build a new small car that they wanted to call the Mini, Mr. Poynter said." In 1994 BMW took control of the Rover Group, which included the Mini. By March 2000, Rover was still suffering massive losses, and BMW decided to dispose of most of the companies. The sell-off was completed in May that year. MG and Rover went to Phoenix, and Land Rover was sold to Ford Motor Company. BMW retained the rights for the Mini name by legal status, granting Rover temporary rights to the brand and allowing it to manufacture and sell the run-out model of the old Mini (the Mini Classic). The last Mini was built on 4 October 2000 and presented to the British Motor Industry Heritage Trust in December of that year. After the last of the Mini production had been sold, the 'Mini' name reverted to BMW ownership and was changed to MINI. The new BMW MINI is technically unrelated to the old car and none of its development is done in the UK. So let's have the marque article, that is titled simply "Mini", and a separate additional article for the Mini post-2001 (Mini BMW).... what's the problem?--IIIraute (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources stating that the 2001 Hatch was designed in the UK, and none which contradict this. And Mini = MINI, they are the same thing. MINI is not an acronym for anything. MINI is just a marketing conceit, just like BAE SYSTEMS is for BAE Systems or QinetiQ is for Qinetiq, they are one and the same. You actually acknowledge this when you say "the 'Mini' name reverted to BMW ownership". Yes it did, because it was not invented by BMW.

I said: The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation. The BMW MINI is a new product.--IIIraute (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's good that we appear to have finally agreed on the continuation of an article focused on the Mini marque. I repeat again the points which I made before though. If we have a Mini marque article (likely titled "Mini"), a model article for the 1959 to 2000 two-door hatch (likely titled "Mini (classic)"), articles for other Mini models, both post-2001 (such as the Hatch and Countryman) and pre (such as the Moke), an article on Mini concept cars, plus the BMW AG articles which deal with post 2001 operational aspects such as finances, what is left to go in this additional and artificial article?

I repeat again that there is no Mini company, subsidiary or division and never has been. In my view this is highly relevant as it means that the article would be a work of synthesis, essentially on products produced under the Mini marque since 2001, which will be wholly duplicated elsewhere. And in order for that separate, artificial, article to provide proper context, it would also need to repeat pre-2001 history in order to explain how the post 2001 models actually came about. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"In 1994, BMW bought Rover from British Aerospace, which was reluctant to make the investment to make the Mini comply with increasingly stringent European Union standards for safety and emissions. British Aerospace had planned to phase out the car by 1996 said a spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter. - BMW made a decision to put money in to keep it legal for another three or four years until they could build a new small car that they wanted to call the Mini, Mr. Poynter said."--IIIraute (talk) 01:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. It is not in dispute that BMW will have had ultimate management control after its takeover of Rover, and neither is it relevant. Nor does it disprove that development work on a replacement Mini took place prior to the BMW takeover, nor that the 2001 Hatch was designed in the UK. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times article, quoting spokesman for MG Rover, Gordon Poynter, makes clear that the old Mini had no future, and that the general perception is that the car ceased to exist[59],[60]. The MINI is a remake of the Mini and a revival of its marque - not the continuation: "Workers take a last look at the last British Mini to roll of the production line..."[61], "The Mini... entered automotive history when the last of its 41-year pedigree -- No. 5,387,862 -- rolled off the production line Wednesday."[62], "A grand farewell to a British icon"[63]. The BMW MINI is a new product.

Ok, now that we have also established that there is no UK "BMW Group Engineering Division" nor a "BMW Group UK Development Division" and all technology was developed by BMW, Munich, we are down to the design: Frank Stephenson (BMW Group Designworks) is credited for the design of the Hatch. 1991-2002, Stephenson penned the new Mini One R50 and Mini Cooper leading the team which developed the E50 car in Munich (parallel development in England by the team at Rover has been dropped in 1995)[64].--IIIraute (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: And please do not use the "Daily Telegraph" as a reference anymore - too much jingoism[65], and not more trustworthy than "FOX News"[66],[67],[68].--IIIraute (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not too happy myself to include the BMW Mini as a seamless continuation in an article covering the Mini from 1959 on, but I have to admit that it makes a lot of sense and helps clearing things up for the uninvited. Instead of you two (Illraute and Rangoon, that is) disputing various details and points of contention, how about you both put forth what you think a reasonable division of the entirety of the Mini history, such as my proposal above? Then we could invite the rest of the Automotive Project editors and have them vote on three choices (or perhaps synthesize further first)? Then the various details about what was developed where can be hammered out within an agreed upon framework, which should make everything easier.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to support for Mr Chopper's very pragmatic and clear proposal. Warren (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can support the proposal which Mr Choppers made above for an arrangement as follows:

- "Mini" - an umbrella marque history, from Issigonis until the current day, with links to the various other Mini articles (this would essentially be the current Mini (marque) article)

- "Mini (classic)" - a model article on the 1959-2000 two-door hatch (incorporating the original Mini Clubman content, although that could in time also have a standalone article, it is sufficiently notable) (this would essentially be the current "Mini" article)

- Each Mini model to have its own article (with Clubman (2008 to present) having a hatnote link to the original Clubman section within Mini (classic))

- The current Mini concept cars article to continue as is

If we can reach a clear and fairly quick consensus on this on this Talk page then I think that would be greatly preferable to taking it to the project, which will inevitably be time-consuming, and involve yet another re-tread of the discussion above (the discussion has already taken up a considerable amount of time, it cannot be argued that there has been an unwillingness to explore the issues in detail). However if no consensus can be established on this talk page then I support taking it to the project.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need a Mini marque article? Why not have a Mini (car) article, similar to the Rolls-Royce (car), with the following subsections:

Mini British Motor Corporation (1959–1968)

Mini British Leyland (1968–1986)

Mini Rover Group (1986–2000)

Mini BMW Group (2001-)

...or, the subsections:

Mini (Classic)

Mini (BMW) --IIIraute (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Support MrChopper's scheme. Mini (car) isn't necessary because, while there are other uses of the term mini at Mini (disambiguation), the car usage is the dominant one, so it doesn't need a disambiguator appended. Speaking of Mini (disambiguation), a section on the Innocenti Mini belongs in the umbrella article. It's yet another example that coverage of the subject of Minis isn't governed by which company is making them, or which country or countries are involved. Honda Super Cub is a good example of a vehicle with much in common with the Mini. Designed as cheap transport for the masses, dating to 1958, built in many countries around the world, made continuously for some 50 years in nearly the original form, and having numerous variant models, many of them quiet up to date, many quite retro. And having been made by more than one company, some illegal copies, some under license.

The editors who keep disagreeing over whether the new Mini isn't a "true" or "real" or whatever Mini are pushing a POV, and should take a step back. The same goes for the disupte over whether the new Mini is British enough. It is true that many experts criticize the faithfulness of BMW's cars to the originals, and complain about their Britshness. That's a worthy topic for the article, as outlined in Wikipedia:Describing points of view. It must be done objectively, with attribution to motoring experts, with no regard to the opinions of Wikipedia editors. The facts speak for themselves, and there is no justification to use Wikipedia to push readers into believing that the new Minis are (or are not) a proper continuation of the line. It's something people disagree about, and should be treated as such.

When you divide two articles on fault lines of disagreement, that is called a POV fork, and it's not allowed. Both POVs (continuity, discontinuity) must be in one article; that's the policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, MrChopper's scheme, with the Mini article in the style of the Honda Super Cub; why not. However, I cannot find any "...is a Japanese marque" or "Country: Japan" in the lead. I have given valid, well sourced evidence (see above) that will have to be part of the Mini article. The new MINI cars have a "W" country-code in their Vehicle Identification Number. The facts speak for themselves, indeed.--IIIraute (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to arrange some sort of voting about this to reach consensus, my proposition is just two articles the old original Mini and the new BMW Mini, its will be too long to have one merged article for both. And we dont need any "marque" page -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We already have the article - it is this one. In what way is it too long? There is also a fairly clear consensus above for a marque article, so why do we need a vote? Decisions in WP are not generally taken in such a way. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont see such consensus, somebody just went and spoiled good old Mini articles, they used to be in good order. If you read thru this there isnt consensus, why so much talk if everything is ok?? -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus, particularly since IIIraute agreed to the marque article. 'Somebody just went and spoiled good old Mini articles' - the article was actually changed well over a year ago, where were you? And I repeat - in what way is this article too long?Rangoon11 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

We did have the two articles as proposed by Typ932, before Rangoon11 created his own WP.--IIIraute (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: what work have you actually done to develop the coverage of Mini in Wikipedia (other than on this Talk page)? Rangoon11 (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer: Quite a fair amount of research to unmask the manipulation and POV pushing done by you. Just some minutes ago you were reverted for a WP:CRYSTAL and non-NPOV compliant edit you did. We did have two fine articles that were in consensus with 18 other language WPs. The article is dominated by your edits and your undoing of other editors contributions.--IIIraute (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You have made essentially no contribution to this article. None. And yet you have happily come to this Talk page, consumed a very large amount of time on circular discussions whilst ignoring responses made to your posts, and made constant and repeated personal attacks. 18 months ago this article was very far from fine. It is still in need of considerable work, but is significantly better, as is the general WP coverage of Mini. Your role in that development: zero. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My contribution is to uncover and rectify the misinformation and falsehoods spread by you - I think that is of great value for the WP and does it a greater favour than your edits.--IIIraute (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not what everybody has made or where they have been one year ago , the main goal is to make articles better, I dont see how this kinda messy all in one page would be needed, it was way better to have own articles for both, why we need to gather all to same page and have links to specific models, these are vey different cars, the old and the new only the name is same, Im not sure if someone looking BMW Mini info would care a lot of old Morris Mini data -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any new points to make, which haven't been made above and already discussed at length? And I repeat - the article already exists, and has for over a year. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that if article exists it doesnt mean it cant be changed? -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You keep saying things like (paraphrased) 'I don't think that a marque article is needed' and 'such an article would be too long'. The article already exists. Is it too long? No. Does it need to be written? No. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

YES, there are parts that need to be rewritten and there has been critical opposition favouring two articles (Mini & Mini (BMW)) before [69]. Why not have a Mini article with the hatnote: For the new MINI (2000-), see Mini (BMW). --IIIraute (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A previous discussion involving three people, one of which was myself, the conclusion of which was that the best result would be to rename this article simply "Mini", which is what is proposed above.

You said above "Ok, MrChopper's scheme, with the Mini article in the style of the Honda Super Cub; why not. ". I take it that you have now withdrawn that comment, and are purely time wasting in this discussion?Rangoon11 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of a single overview page is to introduce the subject to the average reader who is unlikely to be aware of all the bickering and hurt feelings about Minis. They just want to get a basic idea of what a Mini is. They might not even realize there are old or new Minis, or understand what the differences or similarities are. Help that person out. Don't drag them into a partisan holy war over some car. Just lay out a general overview. Once that's out of they way, they an drill down to fussier, more detailed sub-pages, if they wish. The belief that the old and new cars have nothing in common but the name is an opinion. It's a point of view. Splitting articles in favor of that POV is a violation of NPOV. Instead, summarize the arguments of experts on either side of the disagreement. And please, can everyone try to be a little less passionate about this? If you're here to advance an agenda, then you're not here to make a better encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Same goes vice versa "The belief that the old and new cars have something more in common than the name is an opinion. It's a point of view" I dont know if we need to support BMWs marketing strategies here in Wikipedia? Why we need overview article? Its not hard to read two articles. Why the new mini needs support from old Mini but the Old doesnt need any from the new? It was very logical split before this marque page -->Typ932 ^T·C 12:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"I dont know if we need to support BMWs marketing strategies here in Wikipedia?" - who knows what BMW's marketing strategy is, and who cares? Neither should we try to guess what it is and follow it, nor should we guess what is and then do the opposite for the sake of it - it is irrelevant either way. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which side of the debate would be supporting BMW's marketing strategies! However, back to the previous point, the fact that the original Mini was sold for six years during BMW's days of Rover ownership (and with minor incremental improvements during that time when Rover played with the whole nostalgia thing along with MG RV8 and Rover 75), and was nearly seamlessly replaced by the new era Mini means that the history of the marque is inextricably linked; if the POV sees that as a travesty or a marketing wet dream I don't care either way as long as it isn't laboured in the article. Don't forget the new Mini was presented to the public at the Paris Motor Show in October 2000, and the original Mini production ended October 2000, so in terms of most model replacements that was pretty seamless. The fact the models merit their own articles is not disputed and that should cover Typ932's concern. Warren (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Go away for a few days and I come back to find an entire dissertation appears in the talk section. What a shame to waste so much time here. Dennis makes the very valid point about this article being an overview article and that the model specific articles being the place for all the detail. If this article is renamed Mini for the overview and hatlinks to all the detailed articles, and rename the current Mini article Mini (1959-2000), or whatever the preference is, then everything else can stay as is and perhaps all the effort can then be put into making the articles better rather than winding up fellow editors. If we remove the personal swipes in the debate, I do believe we really have a majority consensus here. Warren (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No major consensus as long as Rangoon11 keeps dictating his POV in a sweeping swipe at other editors[70][71]. There is NO consensus.--IIIraute (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel like there is an agreed upon consensus - one which disapproves of the artificial "Mini (marque)" article while retaining the valid points it tried to make. I am too bored to execute the necessary edits (still working on Honda Civic Si), does anyone else want to do the job?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To make sure that we are all on the same page, the workstream as I understand it is fairly small and principally involves:

1. Mini to be moved to Mini (classic) and

2. Mini (marque) to be moved to Mini.

Please can people indicate their support or otherwise for these actions.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No support , Mini can be as its now and Mini margue move to BMW mini is better. OR then Mini classic and BMW Mini -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Simply changing the name isn't really going to remove the bias from the topic. If there is a Mini (classic) article - why does the other one have to cover the same content again? Why can both articles not be in consensus with 18 other WPs (Mini - Mini BMW)? --IIIraute (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It won't be the same - it will be an overview of the history of all Minis, with links to the appropriate articles. Mini (classic) will focus on the car itself, in much more detail.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with both of Typ932's proposals. It simply doesn't make any sense to have two "Mini" articles with no "BMW" association in either of them. The suppression of the "BMW" term is unjustifiable and has to end. Also I agree with Mr. Choppers when he says: "I am not too happy myself to include the BMW Mini as a seamless continuation in an article covering the Mini from 1959 on...", so I would propose to divide this article into two articles: one article covering the Mini and its history prior to the BMW takeover and another dealing with the history of the BMW Mini. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So you want a POV split in the contents of this article, purely so that there can be a Mini article with BMW in the title. Despite BMW Mini being neither the common or proper name of any entity, brand or product. The idea that BMW's involvement in Mini is being 'suppressed' is also ludicrous, BMW is mentioned in the very first sentence of this article. If anything this article actually overstates the role of BMW in the Mini story. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason every time you reply to me lately you hit me with the "POV" hammer? If you continue doing so I will simply ignore you. Did you read what I said above? I simply elaborated on Mr. Choppers' comment: I am not too happy myself to include the BMW Mini as a seamless continuation in an article covering the Mini from 1959 on..." I simply agreed with Mr. Choppers that including both Minis' history in a single article is not an optimum solution. Since I happen to agree with Mr. Choppers' statement I just brought forward my idea to separate the histories. If you disagree fine, but please keep it civil. No POV-hammering. Thank you. And what I meant by "suppression" applied only to the titles of the articles. The title somehow never includes "BMW". I never commented on the actual contents. (edit conflict) When all is said and done I think there has to be a Mini (BMW) article. How the rest of the articles are packaged can still be discussed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To split the contents of this article into two is inherently POV. Fact. Such an approach represents the POV that BMW created a new marque in 2001. Others have made the same point above. It is also a nonsense as the Mini marque is a highly notable topic for a WP article and the suggestion is that an article on that highly notable topic be split into two article on highly artificial topics. The artificiality of the split is indeed reflected in the proposed name of one of the articles - BMW Mini - which is not the common or proper name of anything.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We just had a minor edit conflict on my last comments. How about one article named Mini (BMW) featuring all the models of the new BMW MINI? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

[72][73][74] --IIIraute (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For me, the point is the reader. Many people hear "Mini" and think of the new one, I am sure many don't even know about the original. Therefore, having a overview of all the cars sold as Minis through the ages, with the appropriate links to the various articles, is helpful to readers - which is what we should all be aiming for. We are not trying to make any statement about the Mini, whether it is British, whether it is crass of BMW to sell a compact Bimmer with a bunch of tacked-on Britishness - I think so, but the Mini article is not the place for that conversation. This is just an organizing effort; it is to enable us to bring across information in a logical and accessible manner. As for Dr.K's quote: I simply agreed with Mr. Choppers that including both Minis' history in a single article is not an optimum solution, that is a misreading of my statement - I am unhappy precisely because it is the optimum solution.

As for the divisions in other WPs, I see the point but would also like to mention that in some cases, English language WP is the leader. If we come up with a better organization, we may see other language projects following suit. In any case, when I type "Mini" in Google search, the majority of the images are of the new car. As sad as this is, it also means that Mini really cannot be reserved for the original Mini, since it not clearly the main subject. The Mini brand/marque/name/whatever is the main subject.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I misread your statement but if it is the optimum solution why are you unhappy? I still think that the title Mini (marque) is artificial and that there are a lot of people aware of both the classic and the BMW versions of the Mini and this is why we have to have the Mini (BMW) title. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What Mr.Choppers said. We should be thinking in terms of how best to serve the reader, and remember that most Wikipedia articles are structured in a hierarchy, from general to specific. When you think about Minis in the most general way, that means all Minis, old and new. The most naive reader is the one we are helping here. The sophisticated reader -- one who maybe already has a strong partisan opinion -- merely needs the means to quickly navigate to the article that goes in more depth. The essay Wikipedia:General overview article anticipates many of the kinds of POV conflicts that are common in these cases. It uses Holocaust as an example -- a much more emotionally charged subject than Mini, yet somehow editors found a way to help the reader navigate.

I don't see how sending BMW Minis into some kind of Wikipedia exile serves the naive reader at all. The only purpose that would serve would be to spite BMW. Spite is not a valid motive. Include all the well sourced criticism of BMW Minis that you like. Heap all the scorn on BMW you like, so long as it is properly sourced and weighted. To not give a section for BMW Minis in the main article, Mini, is to prejudge the whole debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that you talk about "scorn" at the same time as I think that the "BMW" disambiguation is actually a recognition of BMW's re-invention of the "Mini" brand per my comment on Mini. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting that POV either. Saying that they "re-invented" the brand is but one of many opinions. Structuring articles based on that one opinion is biased. It still boils down to a POV fork, which is still a policy violation. Yet still we have to debate whether or not to violate policy? The answer is, no, you may not violate policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You cannot prove the statement you just made because it is also your own POV. Until I see a valid citation based on a valid statistical analysis that most people do NOT think of BMW when they think of the modern Mini there is no use of you using the "POV" term and it is also counterproductive if not insulting, especially when posing rhetorical questions about policy violations. The reason we have been debating this for such a long time is that this debate is based on an ill-defined concept. The problem is that the public perception of the name Mini and its relation to BMW has not been reliably established. So you can make all the statements you like, and so can I, about how the public, the uninformed, etc. perceive the Mini brand and its relation to BMW but the fact remains it is just one POV versus another until such time as a reliable study provides the answer. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But there is something like a valid citation based on a valid statistical analysis that most people DO think of BMW when they think of the modern Mini: There are 18 other language WP articles that do separate between the old and new Mini. That's the whole world, earth.... 18 languages (French, Chinese, Russian, German, Japanese, Spanish and 12 other languages) why doesn't that count - because they are so "inferior"? Why can we not have a consensus with 18 other language WP articles?--IIIraute (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. But it is not scientific enough I'm afraid. In another environment it might have been enough. But I detect a definite resistance at this point. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and of course it is not scientific and I know there is resistance - but to ignore the content of 18 other WPs (that are in consensus), is a patronizing POV.--IIIraute (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

[75],[76],[77],[78],[79]--IIIraute (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Put Mini Classic or Mini BMW in Google search, and you'll find the images of the one you are looking for.--IIIraute (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. What is the WP:COMMONNAME of the BMW Mini? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mini! That's the point.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Then it is ambiguous when we have the classic cars and the modern cars. I don't see how it would hurt to call the modern series Mini (BMW) for disambiguation purposes. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity if we have an umbrella article which covers both however. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The interesting point is that people do NOT simply search for "Mini" on Google when looking for the car. That's exactly the point. They always combine it with another word (mini cooper, mini bmw, mini classic, mini one, mini car, etc) You can check it: (Google AdWords). 250.000 searches per month for "Mini BMW" (english language only).--IIIraute (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Most "mini"-searches are unrelated to the car. However there are: Millions for specific models (mini cooper, mini s, mini e, mini one, etc.) and 250.000 for "Mini Bmw", 246.000 for "new Mini", 201.000 "Mini Classic", 49.500 for "old Mini", 33.100 for "Mini original", and a whole of 2.900 for "Mini marque". --IIIraute (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be interesting if it were true, but it's almost certainly not. Can you provide a link to the number of searches for both "Mini" and "Mini BMW" in Google (so far as I am aware Google don't actually provide such search info the public on a rolling basis). However a Google search for Mini produces 3.06 billion results, whilst one for Mini BMW merely 67 million. The top result for a Google search just for "Mini"? The official Mini website (the second and third are this WP article and the WP article currently titled "Mini"). Rangoon11 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW - no one here is proposing that the optimal solution is for this article to retain the "Mini (marque)" title. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

...merely 67 million for Mini BMW???? while there are so many more for "mini"-games, clip, icon, icons, etc. I hope you know that the official mini website comes first because they pay for it.--IIIraute (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So I just made this up or what? I said at "Google AdWords". Most "mini" searches are NOT related to the car. 618.000.000 are related to the keyword "games", 20.400.000 to "clips", etc. Your "search" includes all kind of crap that has nothing to do with the car. However all Mini BMW searches are realted to the car, I guess. --IIIraute (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So what number of searches for the word "Mini" are car-related? The results of a search for that word are very telling - they are overwhelmingly car-related (and interestingly, are related to both pre and post 2001 vehicles). You stated as a bald fact that "The interesting point is that people do NOT simply search for "Mini" on Google when looking for the car." In my opinion that is entirely false, and I see no evidence being provided to support it. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The highest number is for "Mini cooper", with 2.240.000 searches; Mini s, with 1.000.000; www.mini, with 1.000.000; etc. So there are an avarage of 3.000.000 "Mini BMW" searches per year (english language only) - not that bad, huh? I guess that's when people are not looking for a specific model, but for the new Mini in general - on the WP, for example. --IIIraute (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC) ...and we can save them from having to read through all that BMC nostalgia!--IIIraute (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, how many searches per year are made for simply "Mini" which are car related? You can't actually answer this because if the search is simply for Mini, without anything extra, the only people who would know are Google by tracking the results which those searches eventually follow. However, the fact that a search for simply "Mini" produces an overwhelming number of car related results - for both the pre- and post-2001 models (and even if one clears one's cache and cookies) - shows that the answer must be a very high proportion.

Could you also please provide links to the results you are quoting above, you appear to be confusing the number of searches per month for Mini Cooper and "www.mini" with the number per year for "Mini BMW". Rangoon11 (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not. All numbers I gave were results per month. I did write: 250.000 searches per month for Mini BMW - so there are an avarage of 3.000.000 "Mini BMW" searches per year.--IIIraute (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me answer your question: Yes, exactly - we do not know how many of the "mini" search-results are related to the car, and how many to a clip, skirt, pizza, game, other brands like Mac or opera, or whatever else. So why don't we stick to what we know. We do know that on Google.com there are 482,000,000 search results for Mini BMW - and I would guess that they are all car related; we also know that there are 3,000,000 search requests for Mini BMW (English language) per year - what surely validates the perception of the Mini car and its relation to BMW. So we should note that all Mini BMW search results are car related, while the Mini search brings up all kind of results. The Mini BMW perception is of course also validated by 18 other WPs.--IIIraute (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We know that Mini products and the Mini marque have a relationship to BMW, and it is stated very clearly in this article. What we can see is that a search simply for "Mini" in google generates results in which car-related results are a very high proportion, including the top results, and in which the pre and post 2001 Mini models appear almost equally. Here is the Google image result for a search for "Mini": [80] - the result is all cars, and a fairly even mix of pre and post 2001.

BTW I'm still waiting for a link to your various search numbers. And for information on the number of searches per year for "Mini". Rangoon11 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure most people look for images on google when they want to inform themselves about the car???? Why don't you show the normal search results[81] - looks already quite different. From the first ten results, 3 are official mini websites, one is the WP, one facebook and the other five have nothing to do with the car. P.S. One has to log-in for the Google AdWords results - so why don't you check them yourself?--IIIraute (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I will ask yet again, how many searches per year are there for simply "Mini"? And for me by far the most interesting finding to come out of this little side discussion on Google results is that a search for "Mini" produces a complete mix of results about both the pre and post 2001 Mini vehicles. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Look it up yourself - there is no relevance, as we do not know what the result means. But we do know what it means that from the first ten results five have nothing to do with the car[82], yet all search resulats for Mini BMW are car related. It's a fact, isn't it? You should also note that when using the word "mini" on google, only the Mini WP article shows, however when using the term Mini BMW, only the Mini (marque) article shows - so why not call it Mini BMW? --IIIraute (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason you are being so selective in the information which you are quoting is clear - the number of searches for Mini BMW is miniscule compared to the number of searches for simply "Mini", and common sense alone tells us that a very high proportion of Google searches which are for simply 'Mini' will be for the car (hence of course why the 'Mini' page in Wikipedia is taken by a car related article - albeit not the ideal one - rather than by a disambiguation page.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What selective information - what's wrong with you? What is selective about the first 10 google results - take the first 20 if you want... isn't this what you were suggesting when giving your example with the images? Why don't you provide the numbers yoursef - your whole argument is nonsense. Here are the top keyword results (monthly) for mini:

[mini]

1.000.000

[mini clip]

550.000

[opera mini]

450.000

[miniclips]

301.000

[mini mini]

201.000

[mini games]

110.000

[mini countryman]

90.500

[mini moto]

49.500

[mini fridge]

49.500

[mini laptop]

49.500

[n97 mini]

49.500

[mini clips]

49.500

[htc hd mini]

40.500

[mini itx]

40.500

[mini coupe]

40.500

[mini usb]

33.100

[mini one]

27.100

[mini mouse]

27.100

[samsung mini]

27.100

[mini clip.com]

27.100

and there are more (Mini BMW: 246,000), but I'm not going to list them all for our friend Rangoon11. Get a job!--IIIraute (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all: the title Mini (marque) will no longer be used. No one proposes that, AFAIK.

As for that other language Wikipedias do indeed split according to Classic/BMW, the reason it doesn't make sense to do so here is simple: For a little while now we have separate articles on all of the various cars marketed by BMW (Mini Hatch, Mini Countryman, and so on and so on), whereas at least the French and German WPs (I only checked those two) combine all or most of the post-2000 material on a very long "Mini (BMW)" page. Since we have developed to the point that we have separate articles, there is no need for an umbrella article for BMW Minis. I am fairly certain that the very unwieldy articles in use over there will soon have to be split apart as well (the French one is at 118,692 characters), and I think that their end results will be similar to what we are trying to accomplish here. The reason for the organization being different is simply that English language WP has developed a lot more material on the various Minis than has anyone else.

I also mentioned some time ago that an image search for "Mini" gets mostly pictures of the new car. This should prove something, I believe.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

what you are writing is NOT true; as for the German WP for example, they have two articles, yet still a separate article for the Mini Countryman[83]. Regarding your "empirical picture study", please see ↑talk above. For Mini BMW you only get pictures of the new car. This should prove something, I believe.

That still means that the German Mini (BMW) article covers the Hatch, Cabrio, and Clubman (R50-R59) models all together, on one page. We don't cluster them together, but if we had such an article here, I agree that it would most logically be called Mini (BMW). But we don't have such an article, and therefore there is no need for that title. The point of image searching for "Mini" is to indicate what people think of when they look for that term: since a slight majority of the results for "Mini" are for the new car (with a large number of the classic version as well), this proves that neither the original nor the new car is the main subject of Mini.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What a lot of arguing coming to nothing! This article is a mess with much duplicated information. Yellowxander (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)