This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Just been reading about the word "supermini." The Morris Mini Metro, it seems, was cramped in the front and couldn't be driven for long distances comfortably. Lo and behold, the Fiat 128 was two feet longer, having 28% more usable volume for 14% greater weight. They called it the "Supermini."
How can you call the Fiat 500 a Supermini when it came before the Mini? This defies logic! If this were a paper encyclopedia, I'd tear this page out! -- Sobolewski 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You are assuming that the 'mini' part of 'supermini' comes from the Mini Metro (a 1980 car) when in fact the term comes from the Austin/Morris Mini which was first produced in 1958. The Fiat 500 started production just a few months ahead of the Mini - but it wasn't seen in English-speaking countries until AFTER the Mini splashed all over pop culture in the early 1960's. Hence (at least for English speakers), the Fiat 500 did indeed come AFTER the Mini - at least culturally.
As for the Mini being uncomfortable because of cramped driving space - I have to disagree. The classic Mini was indeed a car of microscopic dimensions - but it was VERY cleverly designed. I'm currently restoring a 1963 Mini and I can tell you that as a fairly normal 5'10" person, with the seat slid all the way back, my feet only just touch the pedals - I have to have the seat moved forwards a couple of notches in order to be comfortable. In fact, the worst problem with driving the Mini is that with fixed three-point seatbelts, you can't reach the controls on the center console (The Mini originally shipped with only lap belts). One very popular after-market part for the Mini was 4" long plastic 'switch extensions' that brought the controls a couple of inches closer to your hands! The thing that made the Mini so uncomfortable to drive was that the seats were very poorly padded. The designed (Sir Alec Issigonis) was famous for saying that drivers would be more alert if they were not sitting too comfortably - and DELIBERATELY made the seats a little uncomfortable!! Well, with modern seats and switch extensions, my Mini is now very comfortable to drive.
Now, please smooth out the page and carefully tape it back into the Encyclopedia!
66.137.234.217 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
4 adults and a child ? in a Fiat 500 ? Is it serious ? Ericd 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Being 1,80m tall and rather short-legged, I've never found a way to have my feets touching the pedals, my hand on the wheel without my knees touching the dashboard on a classic Mini. No problem in a Metro. Ericd 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the revolutionary Austin Metro. What is so revolutionary about it? Also references to the Hillman Imp (an internationally irrelevant car), while no references to the Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV or Renault 4?
I'm not sure what was so revolutionary about the Metro either, it keep some features of the Mini (hydromatic suspension) but offered nothing radical Alastairward 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not real familiar with the Renault 4 though...dunno about that one. SteveBaker 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really true to say, as the added template does, that "This article does not cite any references or sources." The whole of the first section is clearly and repeatedly sourced.
Sourcing the history section is more of a problem because so much of it is just general knowledge. I'm not convinced that you really need to source statements like, "The Fiat 500 and Mini were successful mass production mini-cars in Europe, going on sale in 1957 and 1959 respectively."
Rather than tag the whole article as being unsourced, I think it would be more helpful to look at the detail and add the "citation needed" tag to any contentious statements.
I propose removing the blanket "no sources" tag unless someone has a good reason for leaving it. Adrian Robson 08:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Much as I hate to admit it (I'm quite patriotic!), this article is horribly British biased. While this car class might not be common in the US, therefore there need not be that much US info, there needs to a be more Asian and European slant. Calling cars foreign in an international encyclopedia isn't really on Talltim ( talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move. Also, the dab page has been moved per requested in the discussion. JPG-GR ( talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Supermini car → Supermini — (a.) There are only two articles on the disambiguation page, so a "For X see Y" link could be used on primary page. (b.) According to http://stats.grok.se, the auto page receives 7500 hits/month, while the computer page receives 1500 hits/month so auto page is much more popular. (c.) "Supermini car" is not correct term. Do Google search and "supermini" by itself is the way it is most normally written. — Chryslerforever1988 ( talk) 16:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.If this article's history is correct, I suggest to move the whole thing into a subsection of the aforementioned article for the following reasons:
a) both terms refer to the same classification of cars;
b) the term "subcompact" appeared earlier than "supermini";
c) "supermini" was not found as a term in the
Oxford's.
Also, if you are moving the sucker there, please bump a redirect here respectively. Thanks, Shadiac ( talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It needs someone with access to the appropriate issues of Consumer Guide to sort out some of the refs but to answer your points:-
a) They probably do but one term is an imprecise subjective British term, the other is a more well defined objective US term b) It may well have but its unlikely anyone in the UK would use the term "subcompact" except in relation to American cars. c) Supermini is in Oxford's "Originally: a relatively powerful or large Mini (MINI n.1). Now chiefly: a small car, esp. a hatchback, which is large or powerful for its class." [1961 Daily Gleaner (Kingston, Jamaica) 18 Oct. 9/1 In the same range are the Mini Cooper and the Super Mini Minor.] 1963 Times 9 Oct. 16/2 The Mini Cooper, with a 997 c.c. engine and 55 b.h.p., provides extra performance; the Super Mini has a more luxurious interior. 1984 Which? Oct. (Car Suppl.) 5/1 Popularly known as superminis, these cars are a size larger than the original BMC Mini and are typified by the Austin Metro. 1991 What Car? Apr. 51/2 With gutsy 1.3 or 1.4-litre engines, these modern superminis are not only practical town cars but, with the possible exception of the Mazda, are also terrific on the open road. 2000 Advanced Driving Milestones (Inst. Adv. Motorists) Summer 51/1 Today's generation of superminis, such as the VW Polo, Fiat Punto and Renault Clio, are spacious and refined."
For Subcompact they give:-
"U.S., designating a car which is smaller than a compact one" 1967 Wall St. Jrnl. 24 Feb. 1/1 AMC [sc. the American Motors Corporation] also is thinking of building a ‘*subcompact’ car that would compete directly in size and price with Volkswagen. 1971 Flying Apr. 68/2 (Advt.), A different-looking subcompact with the spirit of a sporty car. 1980 Times 12 Dec. 24/3 Chrysler extended the close-down of its Belvidere, Illinois, assembly plant, which makes subcompact cars.
I've found an earlier ref than Oxford give for a non-mini usage of Supermini in The Economist magazine which I've added to the page. Mighty Antar ( talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, supermini isn't a colloquialism, its been used formally in the UK right from the start and there isn't a standard term that covers both the UK and the US. Subcompact is one of those American words not widely used in the United Kingdom and supermini is the opposite. Part of the problem with Car classification is that while editors might wish that there was a rigid international system and that they were one and the same for the UK and the USA, they're not. The nearest there is to any sort of internationally agreed standard is the ACRISS Car Classification Code but as thats only used by rental companies, the rule should be use the correct Localization, which for every version of the Ford Fiesta until now should be supermini. Now its in the US, its both a supermini and a subcompact. Mighty Antar ( talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why would you merge this into subcompact? They have different meanings, and making either a subheading to the other would be akin to giving primacy to either American or British English, which is decidedly outside of the Wiki scope. As a matter of fact, I reckon that Wikipedia is really meant to be in an international English, making both of these terms colloquialisms. I do agree that most car classification articles could and should be cut down to about a third of their original size (or less), with lots of irrelevancies removed. Mr.choppers ( talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Should we add the discontinued cars? I personally did... If someone thinks it shouldn't, they just have to undo my changes... Ideeman1994 ( talk) 21:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Back in 2012, the redirect B-segment was turned into a separate article, despite the clear content overlap between the two articles. I have merged them here, though I don't know which title is better. If others feel that B-segment is the better term, then an article rename is in order. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Even though the terms are different, supermini and subcompact are broadly the same in context, in that they both pertain to the B-segment of cars. Let's not forget there are articles for all 3 of these subjects in the English Wiki. Here's the difference based on my observations:
Even if the terms are different, and have slightly different connotations, that's not to say their willful meaning (their context) is any different. The Italian Wiki has a similar duality problem putting these terms into context. On the Spanish Wiki, there is only the B-segment article to refer to which puts 3 terms into 1. I recommend getting a more international perspective.
FielderSincera01 ( talk) 06:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cornellier. Here is the reasoning behind my recent edit:
Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations. I can now see where you are coming from, and I apologise for where I misunderstood your intentions. Feel free to intersperse your replies in the points below, if you wish.
Hi! Thanks for your thoughts. My new comments, and an edit I did:
As for whether the 2CV competed with the 205, and whether the latter was replaced by the 106 ... I really raised that to illustrate that this is exactly the kind of discussion we should not be having, and which is created by having a too-fine classification. -- Cornellier ( talk) 01:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Just been reading about the word "supermini." The Morris Mini Metro, it seems, was cramped in the front and couldn't be driven for long distances comfortably. Lo and behold, the Fiat 128 was two feet longer, having 28% more usable volume for 14% greater weight. They called it the "Supermini."
How can you call the Fiat 500 a Supermini when it came before the Mini? This defies logic! If this were a paper encyclopedia, I'd tear this page out! -- Sobolewski 16:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You are assuming that the 'mini' part of 'supermini' comes from the Mini Metro (a 1980 car) when in fact the term comes from the Austin/Morris Mini which was first produced in 1958. The Fiat 500 started production just a few months ahead of the Mini - but it wasn't seen in English-speaking countries until AFTER the Mini splashed all over pop culture in the early 1960's. Hence (at least for English speakers), the Fiat 500 did indeed come AFTER the Mini - at least culturally.
As for the Mini being uncomfortable because of cramped driving space - I have to disagree. The classic Mini was indeed a car of microscopic dimensions - but it was VERY cleverly designed. I'm currently restoring a 1963 Mini and I can tell you that as a fairly normal 5'10" person, with the seat slid all the way back, my feet only just touch the pedals - I have to have the seat moved forwards a couple of notches in order to be comfortable. In fact, the worst problem with driving the Mini is that with fixed three-point seatbelts, you can't reach the controls on the center console (The Mini originally shipped with only lap belts). One very popular after-market part for the Mini was 4" long plastic 'switch extensions' that brought the controls a couple of inches closer to your hands! The thing that made the Mini so uncomfortable to drive was that the seats were very poorly padded. The designed (Sir Alec Issigonis) was famous for saying that drivers would be more alert if they were not sitting too comfortably - and DELIBERATELY made the seats a little uncomfortable!! Well, with modern seats and switch extensions, my Mini is now very comfortable to drive.
Now, please smooth out the page and carefully tape it back into the Encyclopedia!
66.137.234.217 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
4 adults and a child ? in a Fiat 500 ? Is it serious ? Ericd 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Being 1,80m tall and rather short-legged, I've never found a way to have my feets touching the pedals, my hand on the wheel without my knees touching the dashboard on a classic Mini. No problem in a Metro. Ericd 18:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed the reference to the revolutionary Austin Metro. What is so revolutionary about it? Also references to the Hillman Imp (an internationally irrelevant car), while no references to the Fiat 500, Citroen 2CV or Renault 4?
I'm not sure what was so revolutionary about the Metro either, it keep some features of the Mini (hydromatic suspension) but offered nothing radical Alastairward 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not real familiar with the Renault 4 though...dunno about that one. SteveBaker 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really true to say, as the added template does, that "This article does not cite any references or sources." The whole of the first section is clearly and repeatedly sourced.
Sourcing the history section is more of a problem because so much of it is just general knowledge. I'm not convinced that you really need to source statements like, "The Fiat 500 and Mini were successful mass production mini-cars in Europe, going on sale in 1957 and 1959 respectively."
Rather than tag the whole article as being unsourced, I think it would be more helpful to look at the detail and add the "citation needed" tag to any contentious statements.
I propose removing the blanket "no sources" tag unless someone has a good reason for leaving it. Adrian Robson 08:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Much as I hate to admit it (I'm quite patriotic!), this article is horribly British biased. While this car class might not be common in the US, therefore there need not be that much US info, there needs to a be more Asian and European slant. Calling cars foreign in an international encyclopedia isn't really on Talltim ( talk) 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move. Also, the dab page has been moved per requested in the discussion. JPG-GR ( talk) 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Supermini car → Supermini — (a.) There are only two articles on the disambiguation page, so a "For X see Y" link could be used on primary page. (b.) According to http://stats.grok.se, the auto page receives 7500 hits/month, while the computer page receives 1500 hits/month so auto page is much more popular. (c.) "Supermini car" is not correct term. Do Google search and "supermini" by itself is the way it is most normally written. — Chryslerforever1988 ( talk) 16:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.If this article's history is correct, I suggest to move the whole thing into a subsection of the aforementioned article for the following reasons:
a) both terms refer to the same classification of cars;
b) the term "subcompact" appeared earlier than "supermini";
c) "supermini" was not found as a term in the
Oxford's.
Also, if you are moving the sucker there, please bump a redirect here respectively. Thanks, Shadiac ( talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It needs someone with access to the appropriate issues of Consumer Guide to sort out some of the refs but to answer your points:-
a) They probably do but one term is an imprecise subjective British term, the other is a more well defined objective US term b) It may well have but its unlikely anyone in the UK would use the term "subcompact" except in relation to American cars. c) Supermini is in Oxford's "Originally: a relatively powerful or large Mini (MINI n.1). Now chiefly: a small car, esp. a hatchback, which is large or powerful for its class." [1961 Daily Gleaner (Kingston, Jamaica) 18 Oct. 9/1 In the same range are the Mini Cooper and the Super Mini Minor.] 1963 Times 9 Oct. 16/2 The Mini Cooper, with a 997 c.c. engine and 55 b.h.p., provides extra performance; the Super Mini has a more luxurious interior. 1984 Which? Oct. (Car Suppl.) 5/1 Popularly known as superminis, these cars are a size larger than the original BMC Mini and are typified by the Austin Metro. 1991 What Car? Apr. 51/2 With gutsy 1.3 or 1.4-litre engines, these modern superminis are not only practical town cars but, with the possible exception of the Mazda, are also terrific on the open road. 2000 Advanced Driving Milestones (Inst. Adv. Motorists) Summer 51/1 Today's generation of superminis, such as the VW Polo, Fiat Punto and Renault Clio, are spacious and refined."
For Subcompact they give:-
"U.S., designating a car which is smaller than a compact one" 1967 Wall St. Jrnl. 24 Feb. 1/1 AMC [sc. the American Motors Corporation] also is thinking of building a ‘*subcompact’ car that would compete directly in size and price with Volkswagen. 1971 Flying Apr. 68/2 (Advt.), A different-looking subcompact with the spirit of a sporty car. 1980 Times 12 Dec. 24/3 Chrysler extended the close-down of its Belvidere, Illinois, assembly plant, which makes subcompact cars.
I've found an earlier ref than Oxford give for a non-mini usage of Supermini in The Economist magazine which I've added to the page. Mighty Antar ( talk) 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, supermini isn't a colloquialism, its been used formally in the UK right from the start and there isn't a standard term that covers both the UK and the US. Subcompact is one of those American words not widely used in the United Kingdom and supermini is the opposite. Part of the problem with Car classification is that while editors might wish that there was a rigid international system and that they were one and the same for the UK and the USA, they're not. The nearest there is to any sort of internationally agreed standard is the ACRISS Car Classification Code but as thats only used by rental companies, the rule should be use the correct Localization, which for every version of the Ford Fiesta until now should be supermini. Now its in the US, its both a supermini and a subcompact. Mighty Antar ( talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why would you merge this into subcompact? They have different meanings, and making either a subheading to the other would be akin to giving primacy to either American or British English, which is decidedly outside of the Wiki scope. As a matter of fact, I reckon that Wikipedia is really meant to be in an international English, making both of these terms colloquialisms. I do agree that most car classification articles could and should be cut down to about a third of their original size (or less), with lots of irrelevancies removed. Mr.choppers ( talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Should we add the discontinued cars? I personally did... If someone thinks it shouldn't, they just have to undo my changes... Ideeman1994 ( talk) 21:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Back in 2012, the redirect B-segment was turned into a separate article, despite the clear content overlap between the two articles. I have merged them here, though I don't know which title is better. If others feel that B-segment is the better term, then an article rename is in order. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Even though the terms are different, supermini and subcompact are broadly the same in context, in that they both pertain to the B-segment of cars. Let's not forget there are articles for all 3 of these subjects in the English Wiki. Here's the difference based on my observations:
Even if the terms are different, and have slightly different connotations, that's not to say their willful meaning (their context) is any different. The Italian Wiki has a similar duality problem putting these terms into context. On the Spanish Wiki, there is only the B-segment article to refer to which puts 3 terms into 1. I recommend getting a more international perspective.
FielderSincera01 ( talk) 06:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Cornellier. Here is the reasoning behind my recent edit:
Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanations. I can now see where you are coming from, and I apologise for where I misunderstood your intentions. Feel free to intersperse your replies in the points below, if you wish.
Hi! Thanks for your thoughts. My new comments, and an edit I did:
As for whether the 2CV competed with the 205, and whether the latter was replaced by the 106 ... I really raised that to illustrate that this is exactly the kind of discussion we should not be having, and which is created by having a too-fine classification. -- Cornellier ( talk) 01:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)