Talk:Supermini

Extry, Extry! Definition Defies Logic!

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)

Metro

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 guess the Metro had the hatchback - but I doubt it gets the title of "first hatchbacked supermini"...so yeah - it can be dumped. Whilst the Imp may have been internationally irrelevent - it's a pretty iconic car to the Brits. But the Imp, the Fiat 500 and the 2CV were not by any stretch of the imagination "Supermini's" . The Fiat and the 2CV were both horribly underpowered, cornered like a horse and cart and were not fun-to-drive street rockets as the SuperMini class requires. Even the Mini itself wasn't really a "SuperMini" - although it needs mentioning here because it is indisputable progenitor of the Supermini - and indeed is the entire reason they are called that in the first place.

I'm not real familiar with the Renault 4 though...dunno about that one. SteveBaker 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

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)

I disagree - the entire article is HORRIBLY under-sourced and tagging almost every sentence with a {{fact}} tag is unproductive and makes the article look even more messy. User:PrinceGloria felt that this rose to the level where almost the entire article should be deleted. I think that's going too far - so I reverted that bulk deletion - but without proper referencing, deleting almost the entire article may ultimately be the only way forward. We should all crack open our collections of car books - and see what we can do to better reference this article. If we don't make substantial progress, then perhaps it does need to be pruned back to a stub.

Your example statement ("The Fiat 500 and....") is PRECISELY the kind of thing that needs to be properly referenced - I recommend you read WP:V and treat what it says very seriously.

I've added a handful of cite's I had handy - but this is going to take the efforts of more people with car books than just me!

SteveBaker (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the editorial bit NOT due to of insufficient referencing, but because such discussion is only remotely, if at all, relevant in an article discussing the term "supermini". The purpose of this article is to explain what a supermini is, not to present an essay on small cars over the decades from a Britocentric point of view. The line is a thin red one, but the more we need to be wary. In an encyclopedia, often less is more. Let us make good use of the cites in respective cars' articles and not let an article on a car class become a picturesque journey through this and that. I hope you can get what you mean. PrinceGloria (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some fact tags to what should be cited, which are:

• Sales figures (which will most likely need an appropriate web source), and
• Observations from the Car Buying Guide (most of which could cite the appropriate issue of CBG as a reference). For these, I added a fact tag after each contiguous block of text that refers to a single issue of the publication.

A reminder to editors about the latter: Don't add a source unless you can verify that it has the information you're citing (otherwise, you'll be misattributing information). So, as tempting as it may be to just look up the CBG's publication information and create references from that, you can't add it as a source unless you have access to a copy! 74.70.153.168 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

British bias

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)

This is an article about a British term, so no surprise. I believe, however, we don't need the ramblings on the fate of various cars over the years, which has little to do with explaining the term "supermini". PrinceGloria (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Anybody care to revamp this section into something acceptable? I've got the scissors ready at hand if nobody cares... PrinceGloria (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If nothing is going to be done or proposed to alleviate OR/POV woes concerning this section in the coming few days, I am going to remove it altogether. If an editor would wish to rework it, providing much-needed sources, impartiality and overall encyclopedicity in lieu of editorial style, it will always be accessible in article's history. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No reaction in a week, so here I go. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was 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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.

• Comment - The dab page is useful as a soft redirect of sorts to Wiktionary. It should at least be moved to Supermini (disambiguation) instead of simply overwritten. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

Merge to Subcompact

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)

In consideration to what you've pointed out, I suggest then that supermini be classified under the subcompact category, mentioned in this article. It seems that "supermini" is more of a colloquial term at this point, and the nominal standard term for supermini cars is actually "subcompact".

Basically, my goal here is to distinguish confusion between which category the Ford Fiesta falls under, being that in the UK they class it as a supermini, but in the US it is rather a subcompact. Can this be pointed out here?

Thanks, Shadiac (talk) 17:03, 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 correctLocalization, 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)

Nope, in US it's the subcompact term only. There is no "supermini". If this is the standard term and subcompact is colloquial, remove that one then. The prob here is having two articles talk about the same thing, see? Shadiac (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should ended my last entry: Now its in the US, its both a supermini and a subcompact, in the US it is a subcompact and in the UK it is a supermini, but in neither market is it both. Both supermini and subcompact are standard terms and neither are colloquialisms! One is a standard term used in the UK and one is a standard term used in the US. However unlike Tire or Tyre, they are not simply differences in spelling. According to Vehicle size class the US term has defined parameters whereas the UK term does not. Supermini has and will be used in the UK in reference to cars which the US regulations would not classify as subcompacts. The real problem is having a whole bunch of car classification articles that are very poorly written.Mighty Antar (talk) 13:51, 31 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)

Discontinued cars?

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)

Merged. Rename?

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)

Merge this article into "Subcompact car"

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:

• Supermini has become customary in British use and its context is not so formal.
• Subcompact, on the other hand, is accepted as standard usage by the majority and there are written standards that support this.

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)

Agree. The lead states that supermini is ..."an equivalent of the European B-segment or American subcompact". If that's true then why does this article exist, apart from as a history of the British examples of the segment? --Cornellier (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. They are basically classifications in different regions for the same cars. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello Cornellier. Here is the reasoning behind my recent edit:

• "Failed verification" tags removed where I believe the text is supported by the reference, and restoring some other references.
• The Euro NCAP category warrants its own section IMHO.
• Grouping the decades under a History section.
• Restoring the See Also section, which I believe includes topics that are relevant to this article.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Greetings 1292simon. Thanks for documenting your work like this. I'm the first to admit that I'm a WP:BOLD deletionist, but please consider the following:

• per MOS:SEEALSO, See Also should not include links that are already in the body of the article, which is the case for all of the items, and why I removed them.
• The history section reads like a personal essay per WP:NOTFANSITE. No refs, contains unref'd WP:PUFFERY e.g. "ground-breaking", "set new standards".
• Some of the unref'd statements may not bear up under scrutiny. E.g. "Competition from other segments included the ... Citroën 2CV ... and Volkswagen Beetle". Nobody cross-shopped a 2CV and a Peugeot 205. If the 205 and 2CV are in the same class, then the class definition needs to be reconsidered. And the Peugeot 206 replaced the 205? A strong case could be made that it was replaced by the 106/Saxo.
• Not WP:WORLDVIEW. The Vauxhall Nova is a rebadged Opel Corsa. "Retro styling became popular across Europe from the late-1990s". What about Nissan Figaro, PT Cruiser and others?
• The "Which? Car Supplement" unlinked reference to a 1984 printed magazine is not good enough. If we can't find a reference online, then the content may not be WP:NOTE. At a minimum it should be taken off content that is already ref'd by something else. The "Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Merger Procedure" from 1999 reference is useless without definitions of the classes it lists, and yet is used all over Wikipedia to give these classes an air of being "official".

These are specific problems with this article. However many of the above comments apply to compact car and others. Regarding how the definition of the class should be reconsidered, I believe that there are far too many classes and far too much time spent pigeonholing vehicles into them, most of which is WP:OR. Where such articles do exist, it needs to be made abundantly clear that

• makers do not self-identify their models as such
• the terms are "popular terms"
• the terms are often very region-specific

The car classification article is a train wreck, yet is referred to from other articles, giving them undeserved authority.

We probably should take this discussion to a broader forum --Cornellier (talk) 14:49, 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.

• per MOS:SEEALSO, See Also should not include links that are already in the body of the article, which is the case for all of the items, and why I removed them.

Ahh, I was not aware of that policy. In that case, I have no objection to removing the section.

• The history section reads like a personal essay per WP:NOTFANSITE. No refs, contains unref'd WP:PUFFERY e.g. "ground-breaking", "set new standards".

Agreed. The same issues appear across many car classification history sections: personal essay, unstated bias towards particular countries and brands, puffery terms and a lack of referencing. It was tempting just to nuke the whole section (here is how it was until recently), but instead I tried to work with what was there. Clearly there are still many issues remaining. I would not object to any "deletionist" actions (!!) you consider appropriate for this section in its current state.

• Some of the unref'd statements may not bear up under scrutiny. E.g. "Competition from other segments included the ... Citroën 2CV ... and Volkswagen Beetle". Nobody cross-shopped a 2CV and a Peugeot 205. If the 205 and 2CV are in the same class, then the class definition needs to be reconsidered. And the Peugeot 206 replaced the 205? A strong case could be made that it was replaced by the 106/Saxo.

My intention was only to restore references (since they are so sorely lacking), I agree that the statements are not valid. Although on the 205 replacement, I am doubtful about the 106 theory. I think it is just a typical case of models getting larger over time.

• Not WP:WORLDVIEW. The Vauxhall Nova is a rebadged Opel Corsa. "Retro styling became popular across Europe from the late-1990s". What about Nissan Figaro, PT Cruiser and others?

Agree that the article should refer to the original car. The retro section is indeed debateable and unreferenced, so I would not object to its removal.

• The "Which? Car Supplement" unlinked reference to a 1984 printed magazine is not good enough. If we can't find a reference online, then the content may not be WP:NOTE. At a minimum it should be taken off content that is already ref'd by something else. The "Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Merger Procedure" from 1999 reference is useless without definitions of the classes it lists, and yet is used all over Wikipedia to give these classes an air of being "official".

Regarding "Which? Car", WP:PUBLISHED does not state that sources need to be available online. However, I agree the ref is superfluous for text that is otherwise referenced.
The lack of EU segment definitions is indeed a major challenge. However I feel that there is generally enough consensus about which segment a car falls into, that it is ok to use the EEC reference can be used to support claims like "B-segment is equivalent to supermini".

• These are specific problems with this article. However many of the above comments apply to compact car and others. Regarding how the definition of the class should be reconsidered, I believe that there are far too many classes and far too much time spent pigeonholing vehicles into them, most of which is WP:OR. Where such articles do exist, it needs to be made abundantly clear that
  - makers do not self-identify their models as such
  - the terms are "popular terms"
  - the terms are often very region-specific

Agreed. This is why I support merging many of these articles (although compact cars is an exception, I think that I think the pre-1977 U.S. "compact cars" should remain separate to the C-segment article). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your thoughts. My new comments, and an edit I did:

• added some new ref'd content to lead!
• left the history section alone -- maybe it'll become a section of a merged article and can tweak then?
• rm the EEC merger PDF per WP:OVERLINK and it's pretty weak. I still don't think the NCAP info is properly ref'd though. Put all the ncap text in one place
• rm "see also" per above
• copy edited for brevity (and some WP:OR) the definition and put it in the lead
• rearranged the images a bit for aesthetics.
• set ToC to one level to reduce white space

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)

Thanks Cornellier. That's embarrassing that I fell straight into the trap of the 106/205 classification topic!
I agree with the vast majority of your changes. There's just a few changes I've made regarding the Intro:

• As far as I am aware, Supermini is a British term, so I think the first sentance should reflect this.
• Mentioning the NCAP usage, especially to clear up the potential confusion about the NCAP version also including A-segment.
• Adding an early model to the lead images, to show the evolution of cars in the category. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

All good! Added a ref. Re. UK / GB, the article used both before so I had standardized to the former. Poor old Northern Ireland. --Cornellier (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)