Talk:Moke (revival)

Inline Wiktionary formatting

In the article about the original Mini moke, the word "Mule" is referenced by a Wiktionary citation formatted with a carriage return after the previous citation. It would look like this here:

Is this a bug or a feature (i.e., should this formatting be replicated in the new Moke (2013) article)?

Thanks Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a feature - I don't really care for it, which is partially why I left it out, but not enough to take a stand.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

References and Moke history

(See reference links at bottom of section.)

Part I

Starting thread and bringing conversation about references and Moke history here (per Mr.choppers suggestion). Earlier discussion about the topic can be found here, here, and here, for those who are interested.

First question: I have a local folder with a number of references (maybe 20-25) that may be of use in improving this article (some of which are already cited, many not). What is the best place to share these for other editors' review and use if appropriate? I hesitate to just dump a heap of (bare) URLs here — some of which, as Mr.choppers (rather amusingly) points out (see: WP:RS), are written poorly and are from sources that might be considered too dodgy for a reputable publication — though they do contain information that may be useful in piecing together the fuzzy history of this iconic vehicle's revival.

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I say post them here (like you did on the Moke talk page a while back), we can delete them later. I am curious about the timeline - in the Dezeen source it says Hong Kong-based Michael Young was approached by MOKE International (presumably formed by Chery and Sicar Engineering, although the article is kind of vague on that, too) in 2012 to help design this thing.

“We all worked very hard to get to this point,” said Luo Jun, president of Sicar Engineering. "This project is very exciting for us as we are keeping the Moke spirit alive." Sicar Engineering, subsidiary of Chery Motors, has been working nonstop on the project since April 2012. The Moke will keep its fun factor but will be engineered for the 21st century. It will have a fuel-injected engine that will be available in automatic or manual transmission.
For the next several months, the mule car will be put through many tests to measure performance and reliability. The engine, suspension, steering and brake systems are all well proven components with other Chery automobiles.

Sicar appears to have done the engineering, using standard Chery powertrain and other technology, while Michael Young did the design. Meanwhile, C&D says that:

In 2012 Chinese automaker Chery acquired the name and started to produce a similar-looking car, although one that is considerably larger because of the need to accommodate modern engines and bulkier strut suspension. On the published numbers it is 11 inches longer, 14 inches wider, and sits on a wheelbase 10 inches bigger than the original. Around the world several companies have produced electric versions of this car, with one already being sold in the U.S. by Moke America.
The new Californian comes from a different company, Moke International, and will be built in the U.K.—although it is based on the same Chery design as the rival car, with all major dimensions being almost identical. The Moke Californian has a more powerful drivetrain and, thanks to the the much-delayed enactment of the Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act allowing the sale of replica vehicles, is set to be highway legal.

It sounds as if Chery got the license, set up Moke International, brought in Michael Young (China-based Brit) to do design work and act as a spokesperson a bit, and Sicar Engineering did the development. But we don't know, perhaps Moke International was already trying to do this and then joined up with Chery? The quotes from Luo Jun make it sound like they were very involved as well.

And then the real confusion starts, as countless British, American, and a French company all start building these. I read somewhere that it was also assembled in Belgium and somewhere in the Caribbean. I have a hard time separating the American companies involved; American Custom Golf Cars, Inc., Cruise Car Inc., Moke America and then there is some sort of dispute between the latter and Moke International IIRC. Maybe Mokeusa could help us out... For another COI account there is BURBYS, who mentions that the French one was built by BurBy's who took over from the Pelican Group.

But there is one more thing: The Moke article used to mention "In 2008, the Noun'Electric company began offering an electric Moke copy named "NosMoke", homologated as a heavy quadricycle (European l7e category). The original design was made in China but the quality was deemed unacceptable, and a revised model (current) was developed. This is produced in Cerizay, France, at the site of the earlier Heuliez factory." Perhaps that is the design that is still offered by various Chinese vendors? The French entry states otherwise though, as does NosMoke's history page which all say the company was started in 2012, and that they stopped using Chinese-made bodies in 2014. FWIW, someone says there are lawsuits brewing against Moke America for low quality of batteries in particular (see the comments section).

Someone named jaseinthejungle made the first mention of the Michael Young Moke back in 2013, but their account is dormant. Someone else posted links to an Antiguan company (Island Mokes Ltd.) that was going to build the Moke as the "Jumby", but they vanished a long time ago. The associated website has gone through a few changes (worth clicking): [1], [2], [3]

I also find the French companies (Pélican ProGolf, BurBy's, Noun Electric, NosMoke) interesting. moke.fr's website stated "Pélican Progolf, en collaboration avec Fenghi, a développé un modèle électrique reprenant avec exactitude les bases de son ainée. Cette voiture, 4 places ou 2 places est en cours d'homologation et de réception Européenne en tant que véhicule homologué route" in 2012. The pictures are small but definitely look like the still-available Moke knock-offs pre-dating the Chery car. That website went dark in 2013 but came back alive in 2016 as BurBy's site.

Meanwhile, the ChinaCarWeb forum says that the project which ends up becoming MOKE International was originally started in Australia as "Moke Motors". This makes sense to me, now we just need some better references than forum posts. This article from the Saychelles does discuss the earlier Chinese knockoffs and also covers the new company's Australian HQ.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks as if various vendors in countries where beach cars have a market (Australia, France, Caribbean, other island nations) always had a demand to replace their beloved Mini Mokes. Various small Chinese firms offered "Mokes" of varying quality, and eventually Moke International (née Moke Motors) decide that there is a market for a new Moke built to a higher standard. Chery, Sicar, and Young create this product. This is then offered to any comers, some get them CKD or SKD while some (like NoSmoke) build them almost entirely locally after disappointments with the quality. I think that maybe we can divide the article into a basic history, and then one section for each of the countries (France, UK, US, others)? This is not an attempt to make my own research but just an effort to straighten out the sources which already exist since they are often contradictory and lacking in perspective.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The first NosMoke was actually manufactured "by Shandong Tangjun Ouling, better known by its brand name T-King, which also supplies Noun with its small car Tianshi" as per the China Car Forum, which is usually astoundingly knowledgeable.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to add the astoundingly detailed notes above. Very interesting and informative (though it will take me a bit of time to read through everything in detail). See below for the references I mentioned. It seemed wise to separate these from the thread as to not add clutter (which you may find much of it to be anyhow). I certainly don't mean to suggest that any of it is suitable for use here, though in keeping with your earlier observation, even poor sources can contain useful information. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the "China Car Form" you mention, but there is some interesting chatter in this thread (some of which reiterates points you have made already, and some perhaps new). There are also some photos of a version styled MOKO — as if we needed yet another — below which there are additional photos in which someone has (bizarrely) gone to the trouble to blackout the nameplates. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - research is fun, especially when it's unpaid. And that's the forum, yes! Sorry, I thought I had included a link. The people there seem to be in the industry; they always know tons and even if we don't generally use forums as references it gives you threads to pull on. I think the MOKO et al is based on one original copy; these knock-offs filled a need for beach cars and also showed Moke Motors that there was a business opportunity. I am going to separate the references below, perhaps we can add little blurbs explaining what each one covers and then perhaps timelines may be established.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Made some additions and added rough dates (can go back later and add precision if needed). Re: "timelines" comment above, any reason not to re-order these refs by date? Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done (Re-ordered from oldest to newest.) Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: Also, some of the refs below have little nothing to add to the subject of the new Moke (though they might be relevant to the original Mini Moke article — or simply amusing and/or of interest aesthetically). Should these be removed?

I've tried to re-read all of the sources below (some of which is excruciating, I might add), and the first mention of the new Moke seems to be from October 2012 (see: "Dezeen 1" — which, as Mr.choppers mentions in the detailed notes above, also states they were "working nonstop on the project since April 2012"). Does this merit considering renaming this article (at some point)? If yes, then maybe "Moke (revival)" would be the future-proof option. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I vote Moke (revival), but 2012 works if you prefer.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Moke (revival) makes sense. That would be my vote too. (If it turns out that this thing started in 2011 or 2010, then what? Arguably, it would need to be renamed again.) "Revival" is timeless, yet it also invokes the difference, as well as any links, between this project and the original Mini Moke. Are there any technical reasons not to rename the article? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. The only reasons not to do it is to keep the number of redirects down and in the interest of stability. This is a fairly new article, so not really a concern. The only thing that could happen is that there is another Moke revival and then we will have to figure out how to disambiguate.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed two a few redirects. Any other maintenance tasks that should be done? Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Part II

That Kate article certainly only created more questions. Also, look at this fascinating picture from the long dead E-Moke facebook page: a shortened e-Moke sans-permis version. I wonder if any were ever built?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the Kate website, and as far as I can tell this (as well as the Burby Mokes, E-Mokes, and the Nosmokes) are manufactured by someone else - they all have a flat nose, unlike the Michael Young one.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If emulation is the highest form of praise (or flattery), then it's amazing how much praise this little once abandoned gem of a car has gotten of late. In my view, the strangest of the lot is the "Maserati" powered version (which is also bizarrely appealing in some piston-head kind of way). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

PS: I'm seeing some "1,132 errors" on Filter Log for using depreciated sources above. Is this a problem? Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure how to see the errors, but it could be. 1132 sounds like a lot... Blogs and so on are not good as references, I hope that's the entirety of the issue.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It's only a couple of errors (thankfully), not one thousand plus! "1,132" seems to be an ID number for a type of error. If you go to User contributions and then click "filter log" (top right), you see a list of errors that the user has triggered (in my case, there are two of these "1,132" errors at the top of the list — both for links added above). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it's the Daily Mail. Since that rag went from everyday tabloid to mostly filthy lies, WP overreached massively and blacklisted anything from Daily Mail - including coverage of the 1973 UK Motor Show and innocuous/boring content such as the one linked above. Now I agree with not citing the Daily Mail on issues such as, say, immigration or Hairstyles of National Leaders or anything to do with anything of importance, but this blanket ban really goes against all notions of freedom of thought and speech.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can spot which is which as there is such a plethora of differences (some subtle, some less so). I'm still thinking of getting one, but at this point, I'm inclined to wait (or find a nice original and convert it to electric).

Re: Your comments below about what this article should cover, I'm interested in the art, design, and architecture side of Wikipedia (amongst other things), so the Young version is in my wheelhouse more than the others. Also, not certain I fully understand the nuance between doing good sleuthing to find facts versus tipping into original research.

That said, and regardless of my interests (or eventual concerns about WP:ORIGINAL), it seems to me that until it's clear what's what and who's who, it's probably best to keep all of the post-Cagiva Mokes together in Moke (revival) for now. There could be merit in trying to structure the article more like the Mini Moke article (which is still a bit messy, in my view) in order to better differentiate between the various claimants to the distinction of decent from the "Original" (British designer, manufactured in UK by Fablink would probably ✓ that box in my book better than the others), but the article reads well and is good as is too — certainly much better than before you split it into a separate article.

On another note, The Prisoner trailer in the Singulars article is cool, and the 1956 Austin-Healey on the RM Sotheby's site is rather lovely. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

PS: This too: 1953 Maserati A6GCS/53 Spyder by Fantuzzi, though the price might be a deal-breaker.

I second all of that. Sleuthing does assist in figuring out how to find references and helps avoid confusion (I know I had assumed that the French ones were also Chery products). I also agree that this one works for all of the revival projects, but I think that the original Nosmoke merits inclusion in Mini Moke since it is a faithful copy.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the computer image from Stir (above), I finally understand what you were referring to about the nose. It looks like the Chinese site you found a few months back shows both configurations (flat and pug-nosed) though. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The differences are subtle until you see them! The Chinese site shows mostly the Young design, while the nice outdoor photos all show either British- or Portuguese-made originals. I think that means that if you order from them, you will get the third design (the Shandong Tangjun Ouling style).  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As an iconic British motoring classic, BMC Mini Moke rolls off the tongue, MOKE (with or without a French accent) comes out easy, Shandong Tangjun Ouling style — less so. Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Should the article be updated to include the new "Kate" information (it looks more like a re-branding or take-over of NoSmoke rather than something "new" per se)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

References

• China PEV Chery engine specs ('11) (Engine used in petrol new moke — also see note below re: discontinuation of ICE Mokes.)
• Archived Moke International website ('12) (First mention of Moke International.)
• Dezeen 1 ('12) (First mention of Moke revival: October 18, 2012)
• Archived Moke International website 2 ('12)
• Designboom ('13)
• Dezeen 2 ('13)
• Designboom 2 ('13)
• New Atlas ('13)
• "Jumby" Salty Dog 1 ('14)
• "Jumby" Salty Dog 2 ('15)
• Corriere della Sera ('15)
• John Sheppard obit ('15) (John Sheppard worked with Alec Issigonis and was purportedly responsible for the body shell design of both the Mini and the original Mini Moke.)
• BurBy article ('16)
• italian, bardot ('17)
• Dutch Moke Electric site (Gilko bvba)
• Gilko bvba, "about"
• Bloomberg ('17)
• French article on Burby Moke - MokyBeach, BeachMoke, JumMoke
• MITCO World - explanation of the Burby Moke models
• Bardot photo via BMW ('19)
• CAR magazine ('20)
• Business-money ('20)
• Fleetpoint ('20)
• pistonheads (landing page)
• pistonheads 2 ('20)
• pistonheads 3 ('21)
• Cerizay, Ouest-France ('21)
• Stirworld, Bond ('21)
• Saint Tropez Bardot (italian) ('20)
• Archived Moke International website 3 ('21)
• Moke review ('21) (by Stephen Bayley)
• german article ('22)
• robb report ('22)
• Bloomberg ('22)
• Forbes ('22)
• Rolling Stone ('22)
• SAS, canadian link ('22)
• EV Technology news release ('22)
• wallpaper, Moke Californian ('22)
• wallpaper Michael Young ('22)
• Dezeen 3 (exhibition) ('22)
• Material Matters ('22)
• Goodwood article ('22)
• Moke + Callum ('22)
• Moke + Callum 2 ('22)
• C&D 1 ('22)
• No more "Jumby" Salty Dog 3 ('22)
• autoblog ('22)
• La Repubblica, electric ('22) (in Italian)
• Designboom 3 ('22)
• Globetrender Moke Californian ('22)
• Prestige Online ('22)
• Hot cars Moke EV ('22)
• Stern - Moke Californian ('22) (in German)
• la stampa ('22) (Maserati V8 powered "Moke")
• C&D 2 ('22) (Moke US "60 Years of Bond edition")
• PRNewswire ('22)
• CleanTechnica ('22)
• Designverse ('22)
• ITA ('22)
• Fox News ('22) (Mentions lawsuit and highway legal status)
• Slashgear ('23)
• Gretzky pink Moke barbie ('23)
• Kardashian Moke ('23) (Same vein as above)
• Kate acquisition of NoSmoke ('23) (French Moke re-relaunch)
• ABC Television ('23) (US Low-speed EV regulations)
• GQ Magazine ('23) (Moke EV version)
• Highsnobiety - Celine Moke International ('23) (not clear if or how the Moke Azur "Bardot" video is related)
• Global News Wire - Electric sales ('23)
• Mini Moke set for an EV comeback? ('23) (Countryman variant)
• Surf Club ('23)
• US debut: Moke International at the Surf Club ('23)
• MOKE x Argylle ('24)
• Buzz ('24)
• Trend Hunter ('24)
• T3 ('24)
• Bloomberg re: trademarks ('24)

• Italian version
• China Car Forums
• MOKE international (actual)
• m-parts moke history
• fablink [NB: "From January 1st 2022, it will no longer be possible to order Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) MOKEs, making the marque the first legacy manufacturer in the world to go fully electric. Customers wishing to acquire the last of these can through MOKE’s official UK distributor, the Hendy Group."]
• EVTG strategic brand group (fixed link)
• Michael Young's page on the Moke
• Cars4starters (in Australian, mate; good archival images)
• Abe books
• Moke Motors, Financial Review
• David Report
• Gessato
• Callum Campervan
• Youtube

Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Clean-up and reorder. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

New photos

Some other kind of E-Moke design; note the flat front whereas the Chery/Young has a prominent overhang

I found some additional photographs of the revival. Not sure if there are enough here (or if they are good enough shots) to merit a "Gallery", but I've added a few to give more context vis-à-vis the various iterations mentioned in the article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Nice - the pictures are of some interest for sleuths: the Nosmoke Original is a faithful copy of the real Moke, manufactured by some random companies in southern China and assembled by Nosmoke S.A.S. (ex-Heuliez) until they got tired of the low quality kits and changed to the Chery design. The French-made E-Mokes and the Moke America I photographed both seem to stem from this revival but have distinct differences (look at the A-pillar mounts for instance) but this seems to be the result of the practices of the assemblers and the different rollbar installations. See here for commentary regarding the Moke skirmishes at Paris 2018. There are also the other e-Mokes (pic on right); this is a really awful looking revival attempt, even worse than the Chery ones. Should this page only concern itself with the Chery/Young Moke or should it be an article for all of the various, recent Mini Moke copies out there?

Side note: all the pictures uploaded by JasperYoung007 and Sara007 and Sara007 are all copyvios. Either this is some Michael Young fan, or it is someone in Michael Young's office who doesn't understand Wikipedia's copyright needs. You could probably contact Michael Young directly and have them upload a couple of photos that haven't been published elsewhere under another license already, that's what Mercedes-Benz does in some instances. Michael Young's firm does have an account here, although it has been dormant since 2012: HongKongStudio  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that Sara007 worked for Michael Young, because they posted twice while not being logged in and their ip address is in Hong Kong. Bwahahah.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The Moke Wars story sounds like it might be fun to explore. A sub-section that deals with: "Moke wars in Paris: two pink Mokes, completely different designs & different makers. One on left is UK designed & French built, the other is Chinese (and dangerously titled ‘Mini’ Moke)" might be the end result. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Q: Why is this article not rated?

Wondering why this article has no rating – is there something additional that needs to be done? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

New photo on Commons

Hello Mr.choppers, hope you are well. A very high-quality photograph of the Moke revival has been uploaded to commons (User worked for the designer and has declared CoI, seems to be legit, etc.). I propose to use this for main infobox image. As the photo that's now used is from your catalogue, I thought it proper to run this by you. It is probably possible to get other images too (notably that technical image that shows the overhang – which would be very cool to have here). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I cropped it and uploaded it; I also asked the uploader to go through the proper permissions process because otherwise this will end up deleted down the road. A much better picture, but the crazy low grade photoshop work on the rims truly hurts my eyes.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Funny that LexLevels went from design to culinary, I pretty much did the opposite.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mr.choppers nice to see some similarities in our passions. A lot of crossover between design and the culinary world in my opinion. Hope the change is going well for you. LexLevels (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to give my best advice re: permissions, though I'm still pretty perplexed by some of the nuances on Commons (I've had some successes and some failures). I've had images deleted that I uploaded upon seeing similar images, only to have them fail to pass the requirements. That LexLevels has direct access to the source(s) seems like a good starting point to getting this part right. Re: photoshop, this is out of my purview – I can't even see what you're seeing. The picture looks great in the article though! Let's hope it stays. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Oh, wait, now I see it: the rims aren't really there – they were added digitally. Once you see it, you can't see anything else. Painful indeed. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Not as bad as these guys, but you'd hope they would do better.  Mr.choppers | ✎  14:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I agree. During my years at the studio, I never ever noticed this either. Let me see what I can dig out and get back to you on this one. LexLevels (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Dimensions

The dimensions cited on the specifications page of MOKE International website are slightly different from those shown in the infobox. I plugged these values into the wikidata entry for Moke (revival) but wanted consensus before making any change to the information here. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
PS: @Mr.choppers: You might find it amusing (or headache inducing) that the artiste de retouchè responsible for the handiwork displayed on this page also appears to be from the same school (perhaps even one and the same hand)!