Talk:Mini Moke

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)

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:

1. It was marketted as a beach buggy (see some of my references).
2. I don't know how else you'd classify or decribe it.
3. There is actually a photo of one of them parked on a beach (although I grant you that it's probably stuck there!).
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

B-Class 14 December 2006

(Copied from /Comments subpage June 19, 2013) I rated it as a B-Class article because it is quite short and there are references but not inline references. I think the history section is very good. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 03:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I can certainly fix the references to make them inline - and when Amazon.com gets around to shipping my christmas presents (!) I should be able to add some more references. As for the length - well, I can try to find some more things to say - but because the Moke's engine, wheels, suspension, etc is 100% that of a Mini - I'd rather refer people to that article rather than to try to duplicate that information. Aside from those things, there isn't a whole lot more to say. I don't like to pad out an article with either filler, trivia or unnecessary detail. IMHO, the article is the length it is because we've pretty much said what needs to be said. SteveBaker 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is now quite a bit longer (I read a bunch of Moke books over Xmas) - it has more references and they are inlined in the modern style. I have put it up for WP:GA - but there is a huge backlog there and I don't see a lot of people working on decreasing the backlog - so that decision may not be made for a while yet. Meanwhile, I wonder if you'd consider an A-Class rating for the article. SteveBaker 17:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article passed WP:GA today (Jan 3rd) - can we upgrade it to GA status here too? SteveBaker 04:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. 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!)
2. 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)

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)

The Australian Moke supposedly the best one? The other ones must have been tragic! I drove them in the late 70s, hired from local "rent-a-bomb" franchises in the sunnier parts of the country.

1. The gearbox soon lost the syncho mesh, and 1st gear was always impossible to select.

2. The mini engine soon started burning oil. The oil jet bored into the con-rods needed to be closed by peening in a ball bearing.

3. They were easy targets for thieves. No door locks, and hot-wiring took 0.3876 seconds.

4. The lap seat belts, when used, held the occupant firmly against the side of the vehicle while it rolled over several times, after hitting a small pot hole, or cat.

5. The stern was so light it could be picked by one man of moderated strength. Cornering was always risky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.71.179 (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Railway Mokes

Hey folks

any interest in a subsection in relation to railway mokes - three railways in Australia used them - Commonwealth Railways, WA Govt Railways and Tasmanian G Railways- am happy to have a go Sulzer55 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

have added some material in relation to these mokes! Sulzer55 (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Shared Parts from the Mini (Saloon)

Hi,

since i've got a early British Moke and the Goldportfolio Book from Tim Nuttail. I know there are some (minor) bugs in the book. A early English Moke had the gearing from the Van - just open an original Gearbox and count the sprockets ;-) If you don't believe - dismantle another.

The Moke and the Van are lighter than the Saloon so the Saloon had other Shocks at the rear than Moke & Van. Jks69 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was an unhappy moke owner in the 70s. The gear shift linkages were certainly worse than the saloon mini. The system became very rubbery with age and it was a real chore to change gears. Sometime I had to just stop and start from 1st again. The ground clearance in fact reduced with age as the inadequate front springs sagged. Take it onto a dirt road and you'd have to carry it back to the black top. The rear was light enough for two men to pick it up and tow it. I did see them used as beach buggies but only when fitted with illegally large tyres on the front.203.220.104.163 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mini Moke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120330161600/http://www.australiaforeveryone.com.au/world/classic_morris_mini.htm to http://www.australiaforeveryone.com.au/world/classic_morris_mini.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927201415/http://www.macaubusiness.com/index.php?id=411 to http://www.macaubusiness.com/index.php?id=411

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mini Moke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213232352/http://www.mokemagnetic.com/ to http://www.mokemagnetic.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100930044607/http://austin-rover.co.uk/ to http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox automobile

@Chaheel Riens: The following fields are not supported by the template {{Infobox automobile | ground_clearance = {{convert|162|mm|in|abbr=on}} — with 10 inch wheels | front_track = {{convert|1210|mm|in|abbr=on}} | rear_track = {{convert|1160|mm|in|abbr=on}} }}

Mini Moke

Peter Horn User talk 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The following don't show in the article , but do here. {{Infobox automobile | designer = [[Alec Issigonis|Sir Alec Issigonis]], [[John Sheppard (car designer)|John Sheppard]] | layout = [[FF layout]] }}

Mini Moke
Overview
Designer	Sir Alec Issigonis, John Sheppard
Body and chassis
Layout	FF layout

Peter Horn User talk 23:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Found these two in the article. Peter Horn User talk 00:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Rather than tag bombing the article with "citation needed" tags, I've added a hatnote. From claims about Brigitte Bardot, to the Seychelles, pretty much every section contains some unsourced claims or apparent original research. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Chery Automotive

Does anybody have any info in regards to Chery Automotive being involved with a new version of the MOKE in the 2010s? The link just takes you to MOKE International's website but there doesn't seem to be any mention of Chery there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.170.104 (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Found and added. Not sure if links to company website should be removed as there is (still) no mention of the involvement of Chery Automobile that I can find. Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Adding some detail to note above re: Chery and subsequent Moke versions.

As far as I can tell, the new (or "Continuation" version depending on source) Moke is being made in the UK by Moke International/Fablink:

https://www.fablink.co.uk/about-us/news/moke

There is also an electric version (maybe two, it's not clear from the sources I've found), so adding the "Electric vehicle manufacturers" Category seemed justified:

https://www.fablink.co.uk/about-us/news/moke-goes-electric

https://archive.autofutures.tv/2022/07/20/maker-of-iconic-electric-moke-acquired-by-ev-technology-group/

Re: Whether this is a real Moke or a "lookalike", it seems that the rights and original design were acquired, the Moke was reengineered, and the design updated/modernised (starting in about 2012 or 2013), first in China, then in France, and finally in the UK — the latter of which would surely make this vehicle a direct descendant of the original Issigonis (et al.) version rather than a Chinese knock-off or a "retrofuturist" interpretation such as the BMW version of the "Mini", "neo-Beetle", or the "021C" concept car. See Hemmings article, etc.:

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2013/10/10/chinese-automaker-chery-restarts-moke-production

https://www.dezeen.com/2012/10/18/moke-by-michael-young/

https://www.designboom.com/technology/moke-international-by-micheal-young-10-05-2013/

https://www.stirworld.com/see-features-michael-young-revives-james-bonds-iconic-car-moke-for-the-21st-century

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/23/mini-moke-sixties-icon-drives-back-future-modern-day-makeover/

A British made Moke, redesigned by a British designer, and reengineered by a British manufacturer seems at least as 'real' as Portuguese, South African, Rhodesian, or Australian made Mokes. Adding this part of the history to Infobox seemed justified (sorry if I got this wrong — I'm pretty new to editing).

The relationship/difference between "Moke America" and "Moke International" is not 100% clear. Both seem to be selling versions of the Moke based on the post 2013 design. There is also some sort of legal wrangling going on over the rights to the "Moke" trademarks and updated design:

https://electrek.co/2022/10/17/moke-californian-international-us-electric-vehicle/

https://electrek.co/2022/06/26/moke-americas-street-legal-open-top-mini-electric-cars-want-to-trade-high-speed-for-high-fun/

There may indeed need to be a separate article about the redesigned (post 2013) Mokes at some point. For now, it seemed like this information would be relevant to the actual article. Again, I'm new to this and defer to the judgement of more experienced editors. Everything in good faith.

In any case, I'll keep digging (I kind of went down a rabbit-hole with this anyhow).

Way ahead of you!

Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

They are not related to the Mini Moke; it doesn't even carry the same name. From the Hemmings link above: "Starting with a clean sheet of paper, Young penned a design that looks like the original, while improving its handling, braking, comfort and safety." It has nothing to do with the original Moke, any more than the BMW-developed Mini has to do with the Issigonis one, beyond owning the rights to use the name and general appearance of the Moke. However, it absolutely deserves a standalone article, appropriately linked from here.

For an analogous situation, refer to Lotus Seven and Caterham 7. The lineage is much more direct (same production tools, still built in England, by a company which also sold Lotuses) and it still has a separate article. The 2013 MOKE falls waaaaay short of the Caterham 7 as far as being included on this page. My question is what it should be called: Moke (2013) is my first thought. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm not certain I have the skills to initiate the new Moke (2013) article (I have yet to attempt that particular trick, & it looks like there's a lot of levers & pullies behind the curtain — or perhaps under the bonnet, in this case), but I would be happy to help with writing, sourcing, or anything else that's within my skillset. Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

PS: If you happen to see one, please take some photographs. Thanks! Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: I photographed one two years ago. :) I can start a stub article, but it doesn't require much esoteric skills. I learned by just copying a typical article as a template. There should be a sandbox button at the top of your page, that's a place for experimenting.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Starting with a clean sheet of paper (and your photograph) it is then! If you have a minute to make the stub article, I'll start putting the other bits and pieces together. Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

PS: I do have a few sketchy fist attempts at other articles in User:Cl3phact0/Articles/01 but haven't the focus to finish these (or worked up the confidence to publish them). Plenty of time. Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Sorry, I didn't see this and already made an article: Moke (2013). If you want one for yourself you can also buy them directly from the manufacturers in China for much less: [3]  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast. It would've taken me ages to do that. Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe "donkey's years" in this case ;-) Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Most of the content was already there, just had to be shaped since a lot of it was duplicated or confusing. Since you are interested in these cars, perhaps you could clarify the various assemblers? I would also love to know where in China Chery builds them. It was assembled in France, but then that operation moved to the UK, and then that company was bought out. Meanwhile, there are two (or more) distributors in the USA, both of which claim that they are the only one. One assembles in Sarasota and one in Miami, Florida. They are also sold in Australia, but are those imported CBU from China? A few articles mentioned assembly in Belgium as well but I cannot be arsed to find out more.

To make it even more confusing, many of these operators seem to be backbiting each other, and all make grandiose claims that are mutually exclusive. And, as you saw above, you can buy one directly from China as well, although that vendor is showing photos of some very different machines so there is no way to tell what might be in the container when you open it up.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Confusing indeed, although perhaps a little less so now. Looking at pageviews, it does seem as if quite a number of users are actually looking for information about the "revival" version in your new article rather than the BMC original. I suppose this makes sense given the recent press activity (and mud-slinging claims and counterclaims). Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Mule" definition

In the first section, the article states that "Moke" is an archaic form of the word "Mule", with a link the corresponding article about the animal. According to the following article, "Mule" is also a term for a kind of prototype used in automotive engineering:

Development mule

I don't have access to the books cited as references but thought this might be relevant to the Mini Moke article. Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

Added "In popular culture" heading and moved information about movie stars (and their dogs), television shows, rock songs, and super-fandom to this section. Please check to make sure I haven't missed the plot and all good here. Thank you! Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

MOKE revival(s) and Moke (2013)

Hello Mr.choppers, Happy New Year! I noticed that you merged some of the information re: the various Moke revivals and removed the references about Moke America, Moke International, etc. from the article intro. Wondering if this could be improved still? My logic is that it seems likely that many searches for this topic are likely to be coming from people looking for information about the new MOKE, and if so, maybe this background information could be more readily available. Also, the JLR/Cherry part of the history seems like it should be included in the Moke International history rather than the intro (along with the other info that has been merged into the Moke International sub-section). I would propose a short concluding paragraph in the intro that makes the revival connection and offers a link to the Moke (2013) article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cl3phact0, I don't think we need to duplicate a lot of text about the various companies that assemble and distribute the Chery Moke since this article is about the Mini Moke. I definitely agree that it merits a sentence or two in the intro, including a link.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Cl3phact0 - I would like to ask you if you have ever been paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia? There are specific guidelines at WP:PAID if this is the case. Thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Mr.choppers, re: your first message, thanks — glad you agree. I didn't want to make any changes without checking with you, as you seem quite interested in the subject. Should I make the addition or will you?

Re: your second, no I have not. I'm interested in architecture and design (amongst other things), and especially how they intersect with popular culture. The Moke (like it's cousin the Mini) is a fascinating icon of design, and the original article seemed like something I could improve. Your subsequent creation of the sister article re: the revival vehicle was an unexpected and positive outcome. (I do feel that both articles could still be improved.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a link to Moke (2013) in the intro and expanded it a bit, see what you think.

I think anyone who looks at your edit history can be excused for thinking that you were writing on behalf of Paola Antonelli, Ini Archibong, MOKE, or John Hoke III. All I see is the addition of lists of awards and linking them to more famous people, such as the addition of Archibong to the Gary Kasparov article just because they happened to have articles published in the same collection. But I will take your word for it.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the "new Moke" link you've added does the trick — though there is still fuzziness in the history (at least in my mind). I would also be curious to know who is reading the article (both the original and your "2013" addition) and if it is indeed the fact that the Moke has been re-launched that is the source of their interest. What is still not clear top me is whether the UK version is being made in the UK (and if it is the same as the American ones) or if it is still the previous Chinese made iteration. As you pointed out, they all appear to be the same design (size, details, etc.), however, based on what I have read, the manufacture may actually now be all or in part British (after a 30+ year hiatus).

I've replied to your other concerns on my Talk page.

Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Response regarding Moke only; I think you've put the other question to rest:

I think it is hard to say where and how these are made - it is confusing, but it appears that the cars are made in China and then sent overseas CKD in various states of completion (to the requirements of the local vendors) and assembled with some local parts content. It seems almost impossible to find any good sources for anything - it's all puff pieces and/or just rehashed press releases, and even then the information is often unclear or contradictory. I read the following section three times and I know less than ever before:

Intriguingly, although what the outcome will be once trading deals are established with European countries, the car has been designed and engineered in the West Midlands, where its running chasses are formed, although final assembly takes place at a purpose-built factory, the rolling chasses being transported to Cerizay, a town in the Nouvelle-Acquitaine region in western France. The town has a solid automotive history, having been home to Gallic ‘carrosserie’ Heuliez, which coachbuilt the folding roof sections for the drop-top Peugeot 206CC and even built the Vauxhall/Opel Tigra Twintop model.

The original Moke trademark was acquired by Michael Young in 2015 and is now owned by Moke International Limited. The initial intention was to meet a demand in the Caribbean market, where Moke remains popular with both private buyers and luxury resorts and hotels. Following UK regulatory approval, Mokes are now available to purchase in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Additional variants, which include a Chinese-sourced EV package, will be launched across Europe, the USA and beyond from next year. In reviving Moke, the company has gathered a team from some of the most celebrated brand names in the industry. Isobel Dando, leads the board of management, with an automotive career that spans the past couple of decades and includes senior commercial and product leadership roles at Jaguar Land Rover and the BMW Group.

With quotes like "The re-engineering exercise responsible for providing the Moke with an all-new life expectancy is sure to provide customisers, couturiers and customers alike with a vital shot of fun-packed enthusiasm" I would argue that this source generally falls short of WP:RS. More serious sources don't seem to concern themselves with little electric beach cars, and most design sources seem uninterested in the nuts and bolts of the operations. All of the articles seem focused on one single national operation and all of them are endeavoring ever so hard to make it look ultra-British, with only passing references to China. None of that is your fault, of course.

I just noticed that the C&D reference states that Chery bought the Moke brand in 2012, whereas I've read that Michael Young bought it in 2015 in like ten other places. My conjecture: Chery decides to revive Moke and teams up with British designer, sells him brand to cloak it in Britishness. We probably won't know the actual story until much later.

As for what people are interested in, I can't say and I don't think it would have any impact on the articles. Personally, I very much doubt anyone cares about the new one, but that's likely definitely colored by my own preference for old things. (I recently bought a $300 toaster from 1953...) A 1966 recently sold for $60K, FWIW. This other sale includes one of the This sale of one of the revived electric Mokes was built by American Custom Golf Cars, Inc., with a matching VIN. So add one more assembler. Someone in the comments also says that he knows of "23 rolling moke shells in Chongqing,China.. I have just bought 14 moke shells from China from another source.." It's the Wild West East out there! Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't know what the etiquette is here, but I was tempted to mimic your usage and strikeout West above and replace it with East.

In any case, I've gone ahead and started a discussion on the Talk page of Moke (2013) article and will put all future thoughts/questions related to the Moke revival (or whatever it is) there.

Re: old things, we're of the same school. I have owned and driven many (cars and motorcycles). I sort of gave up the habit as they stopped being fun hobbies and became an asset class. [NB: Perhaps collectables (art, design, watches, wine, whisky, Hermès handbags, Nike trainers, and especially — classic cars) ought to be added to the aforementioned article?] I am usually disappointed by new things: especially retro-futurist versions of classics/icons ("Mini", "500", "Bonneville", etc.). I'm intrigued by the Moke revival, and if it turns out to be a high-quality, solidly well-made, long-lasting iteration of the Moke (not just a knock-off), I may well buy one. We probably have the same toaster too.

Cheers Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: The spare key screwed to the VIN plate on the Single-Family-Owned 1966 Austin Mini Moke made my day (it's buried in the photos: 176-177/233). Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

PPS: Your comments re: "Business Money" reference are on point (and hilarious). I used it with trepidation, but I'm pretty sure that it contained something that made it seem like the generally poor quality was outweighed by some useful information. I'll go back and re-check (and hopefully, some better source can be found). Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's generally considered bad etiquette to edit others' comments, but this would've been good. I did it myself. As for buying one, I am hearing some bad reviews about the US-made ones (terrible batteries) and the companies all seem very fly-by-night. If I was in the market, I'd maybe consider the French one since they seem more concerned with the quality and use a lot of locally sourced parts. But in the end, I hate how cheap they look and I don't like the oversized nose vis-à-vis the original. I'd find myself a Citroën Méhari or a R4 Plein Air or a Daihatsu Fellow Buggy if I was super rich.

That key is hilarious. I know what you mean about asset classes, it really drains the fun and also brings in people with (to me) the wrong motivations. Luckily, the cars I love are so weird that no one would think to invest in them...  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

> that no one would think to invest in them

That's what I thought, until they did. Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: If somebody else were picking up the tab: Fiat Jolly hands down. [NB: I think they mean "enquire" rather than "inquire" (or "POA", or: "if you have to ask, you probably can't afford it").]

Wow, there are so many Jollys available; are 90% of them recent conversions? Makes me worried that every single 500 shell out there is going to be chopped up...  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd wager that they are almost all converted 500s and 600s. The real ones* are exceedingly rare — asset classes even, alas. (See this, this, and this.) Your concern for those poor, wayward shells seems justified. Personally, I'd rather see them converted to EVs if they must be sacrificed on some altar, but that's a question of taste (for which there is no accountability — as it has been said). Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

*The Fiat 600 (and 500) article(s) would benefit from expansion on the subject of the Jolly (and, for that matter, the Multipla and Multipla "Marinella" — which may be related via Ghia/Agnelli connection).

"Packed" gallery?

Hello Mr.choppers, wondering why "packed" mode for photos in gallery isn't preferable? Is there a technical standard to which I should adhere, or is this a matter of taste? On my screen, in packed mode, the images display with no empty grey border (and thus are slightly larger), as well as in a more symmetrical manner (e.g., there are no "dangling" lone photos, so the layout looks "better", which is obviously a subjective matter — de gustibus non disputandum est, after all). Fine either way, but as I have added packed mode to a number of other articles that I've worked on, I want to make sure I'm not getting something wrong. What am I missing? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cl3phact0: Like you say, de gustibus &c. To me "packed" looks messy and irregular because of the tiny spaces between the pictures, and because it draws too much attention to how different the picture proportion are. I dislike having them centered and I dislike having the captions centered (that could presumably be changed, but that would require more code). FWIW, when I first added a gallery here I did not use the packed mode.

There is no policy that I know about (probably because I haven't looked), but to me it seems best practice to use standard layouts unless there is a particular reason not to.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: noted & thanks. I'll obviously respect your preference here. Also probably obvious: I (mostly) like the "packed" look (eye of the beholder and all that) and may tend to use it in articles that are closer to the bleeding heart of my monomanias — unless, of course, there is a proscription against. (I'll look to see if I can find any concrete guidance and let you know if I locate anything.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure you're good to go!  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Another possibility might be to use the {{multiple image}} format to better control how photos and captions are displayed (see example here for ref). Thoughts? Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Michael Young Moke 20219.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Bare URL tag?

Can we get rid of the bare url tag? Seems like they have all been fixed. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)