Talk:Mini Moke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Your help requested
The Mini article is in the Wikipedia:Peer review process - perhaps heading towards Featured Article status. I would greatly appreciate experts on the Moke taking a look at it. (If you find a problem, please either fix it or post your concerns on the Talk:Mini page. TIA SteveBaker 20:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Beach Buggy NOT
The claim that the Moke achieved sucess as a beach buggy is spurious. The article on beach buggies describes them as vehicles capable of driving on beaches and sand dunes. The Moke is not suitable for this. The Moke was a popular run-about vehicle at locations such as tropical beach resorts and islands because of its open bodywork, compact size, ease of driving and economy as a rental vehicle, for ON ROAD USE at such locations. It is not a beach buggy and there are engineering constraints which limit its adaptablity for that use ( compared to VW and other vehicles ).Eregli bob 06:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll grant that the Moke makes a pretty terrible beach buggy (and the article makes it abundantly clear that the moke's off-road ability leaves much be desired) - but:
- It was marketted as a beach buggy (see some of my references).
- I don't know how else you'd classify or decribe it.
- There is actually a photo of one of them parked on a beach (although I grant you that it's probably stuck there!).
- Lots of so-called beach buggies spend their entire lives from showroom to rust pile without ever going near a beach. (What fraction of 'sports cars' actually engage in sports - or would be competitive if they did?) - it's just a rough category.
- SteveBaker 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Redundant info?
- The Mandarin Oriental hotel in Macau runs a fleet of around 43.
and
- Happy-Rent-a-Car in Macau runs a fleet of 43 Mini Mokes.
These look suspiciously similar - do they in fact refer to the same thing? Hairy Dude 03:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Mandarin Oriental Hotel's web site makes no mention of any Mokes - and there are none in their photo gallery. On the other hand, the Happy-Moke Rent A Car company are still in business (according to THEIR web site). However, this page from Yahoo suggests that the Mokes will be dead and gone by the end of March: [1]
The guest on the RTHK radio programme that day was a little ambiguous. He just stated the facts as he saw it, never mentioning that perhaps the hotel in fact owns the rental company. I am not familiar with the hotel concerned even though I live just an hour's ferry ride on the other side of the Pearl River. I have my own sneaking suspicion that the 2 are in partnership or perhaps indeed the hotel owns the rental company. In fact, it looks very likely to be so. In other words, I have no objection in anyone editing out the unnecessary bits. --Wilfred Pau 07:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- There have been several other media reports about this that explain this. 'The Standard' explains:
"Liz Thomas and Graham Blakey, former residents of Hong Kong, introduced Mokes to Macau in 1984. "Graham and I used to come here every weekend and in those days there were no self-drive rental cars in Macau," recalled Thomas. "We saw that the police had a dozen or so Mini Mokes from Australia that they used as patrol cars, and that gave us the idea." The couple contracted to buy 40 Mokes off the assembly line for HK$1.5 million."
- Assuming the other 3 came from someplace else - or maybe that the number '40' had been rounded off - this explains they original source of the Mokes on Macau.[2]
- SteveBaker 13:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Since all of this Moke activity in Macau is gonna be ancient history in a few days, and the detailed fate of 50 Mokes out of the thousands that were made is hardly encyclopedic content, we should probably blow away all of the 'Operators' and 'The Future' sections and just add to the caption of the second photo "...and until 2006 in Macau". Arguably we should leave the page as it is for a week or two so that people who look here precisely because of the news in Macau can still find the facts - but a year from now, this is going to look like a pretty odd article if we don't lose those two sections. SteveBaker 13:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree & move the bit about the CUB's designer plus the engine back up to the main article. --Wilfred Pau 15:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer Review please.
I've put this article in for WP:PR - once we've dealt with any comments, I'll put it up for WP:GAC. SteveBaker 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have had a read through the article and have made a few minor tweaks. It looks pretty good to me. A couple of questions:
- Was it based specifically on the Austin Mini rather than the Morris or BMC Mini?
- Yeah - I wondered about that. I don't see what is specifically 'Austin' about the Moke - after all, the Mini was identical in Austin and Morris versions. However, that is what my reference said. Of course references aren't always right! SteveBaker 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Australian 12 inch wheels. Did these really give more ground clearance or were they fitted with low profile tyres resulting in the same rolling diameter. I seem to remember (this is getting close to original research) that early 12 inch wheels were fitted to the Mini to allow larger brake disc/drums but because of the constraint of the rear suspension arm length low profile tyres were fitted. Only later were longer suspension arms used. This could be irrelevant or plain wrong. Malcolma 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm - Chris Rees' book says that the later 13" wheels were "standardized on the Mk2 version because Australian drivers appreciated the extra ground clearance" - so we should assume that the 13's increased ground clearance - but maybe not the 12's. I'll go read some more books! SteveBaker 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Great
This article is looking great a little more information and mabye one extra picture and then it should be a good article. GREAT WORK.Senators 00:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:GAC
I've put this article up for Good Article candidacy. If you havn't contributed significantly - feel free to comment over at WP:GAC. SteveBaker 17:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] British Leyland in Portugal
The Portuguese subsidiary wasn't called "Automoveis". That just means "automobiles" in Portuguese, the full name was British Leyland Automóveis Portugal, shortened to British Leyland Portugal in conversation, and the company was renamed Austin Rover Portugal in 1983. --Pc13 19:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Really?! Wow! I didn't know that. I've looked back through some books - and yeah - once you know what it means, things like "the Automoveis factory" just as easily mean "the Car factory". OK - thanks for the correction! SteveBaker 00:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
In the Portuguese Mokes section, "in their Vendas Novas plant between 1280 and 1390. Initially", the dates are a bit confusing Whats up with the dates? Donn29 13:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article had been vandalised. It's fixed now. SteveBaker 15:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Passed GA
Nice small article for a small car. I didn't know about this car before, but the prose of this article is good enough for me to understand about the subject. The article is also well-referenced. I even don't know what else to improve. Perhaps, if this article wants to go for FA, some of my suggestions would be: more information about its sales and criticism. Anyway, it's a good article. Good job! — Indon (reply) — 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks! Yeah - the article definitely needs to be a lot longer to make FA. It's hard to know what else to say about it without adding bloat. I'll see what else I can dig up about sales & criticism. Most criticism was from the Military - there's a lot written about that so I can probably find some more there. I have three more books on order - we'll see what they show up. SteveBaker 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Galvanized steel
-
- Suggestion: Later Mokes had galvanized steel construction because the early ones were plagued with rust. When did the galvanized bodies appear? Bushcutter (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure - but it would be a good thing to mention. I'll see if I can find out. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Later Mokes had galvanized steel construction because the early ones were plagued with rust. When did the galvanized bodies appear? Bushcutter (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Featured Article Attempt.
At 17kB, the article is a little short for a Featured Article - but it covers all the bases and it's unlikely that there will ever be much more added to it simply because there isn't all that much left to say!
So I guess it's now or never - I'll put it up for WP:FAC tonight.
SteveBaker 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Passed FA!
Woohoo! Mini Moke is now a featured article! Many thanks to all who contributed! SteveBaker 22:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- First the Mini, now this. Funny how so much work had been put into both topics. - Two hundred percent 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that funny? Leebo T/C 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah - it's not funny - and it's no coincidence. I happen to love both cars - and I have a large stack of books to use as references in writing about them. MINI (BMW) is next - but sadly, not much has been written about it yet. SteveBaker 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that funny? Leebo T/C 18:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And thanks to all THREE PEOPLE who supported this for FA. Seriously, an FA with only three support nominations? Are we running short on FAs? 82.28.21.130 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't that irrelevant if you don't have a complaint about the actual body of the article? What in it would have kept you from supporting? Leebo T/C 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much that we are short on FA's as short on FAC reviewers. SteveBaker 23:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] On the front page!
The Mini Moke article is scheduled to be on the Wikipedia front-page on March 12th...although sometimes they make last-minute changes in the line-up and due to whatever timezone the guy who maintains the front page is in, sometimes the article appears the preceding day and vanishes later in the day - sometimes it shows up late and hangs around until the following day. SteveBaker 17:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the front page is automatically updated (at 00:00 UTC). Any delays'll be due to an uncleared cache, rather than tardiness on the part of an admin :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 03:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Bypass your cache Raul654 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice little article, I enjoyed reading it. I would have liked to have known a little more about BL Australia and what happened to it, though. --kingboyk 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah - it would be nice to have more about that - but it belongs in the British Leyland article - not this one. SteveBaker 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Automobile or Vehicle?
Please excuse this rant...
Twice since this article has been on the front page, people have changed the very first sentence to say that the Moke is an 'automobile' - it originally said 'vehicle' - which I firmly believe to be the most appropriate term. I have reverted in both cases - so now is the time for me to explain why.
There are two reasons not to use the word 'automobile' to describe the Mini Moke:
- The article is about a British topic and is written in British English. We Brits don't use the word 'Automobile' - so it's flat-out inappropriate to use it here. Wikipedias guidelines for the use of national dialects is very clear on this matter. So you can't call it an automobile - full-stop. (That's "period" for those of you on the other side of the Atlantic ocean!)
- The definition of the word 'automobile' does not include 'light truck' or 'beach buggy' - it means (roughly) 'passenger car'. This is a firmly established fact that has been debated at huge length (including me quoting the definitions in 14 different dictionaries!) - please check out the discussion on Talk:Automobile and it's reprise on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles (you may need to hunt back through the archives). I'm not going to repeat that debate here - but the bottom line is that the word 'automobile' means more or less exactly 'a passenger car with 2 to 6 seats' - the definition in almost every dictionary I could find specifically excludes vehicles made primarily for reasons other than the transport of passengers. Since the Moke was often delivered with only one seat - this makes it very definitely not an automobile. Most Americans believe (incorrectly) that the word encompasses light trucks, SUV's, small panel vans, maybe jeeps and other off-road vehicles...but it doesn't. Please learn to use your own language with precision!
So - under no curcumstances change 'vehicle' to 'automobile'. If there is another alternative word to 'vehicle', we can consider it - but the Moke's weird history (Military transport? Farm truck? Delivery van? Beach buggy?) makes it hard to put a more precise label on it and 'vehicle' is about the most neutral term I could come up with.
Thank you! SteveBaker 15:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Photo of Austin Mini Moke in "Australian Mokes" section
The caption for the photo in the "Australian Mokes" section reads "Austin Mini Moke" and the Moke in the photo has "Austin" above the grille . Mokes were sold in Australia as Morris Mini Mokes and later as Leyland Mokes but never as Austin Mini Mokes. For this reason I would suggest that the photo is not a good one to use in this section. GTHO 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)