Talk:Automobile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Automobile is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 28, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


"Per journey"[edit]

In the table, does anyone happen to know how "deaths per journey" should be interpreted? Does it mean deaths per passenger journey, or per vehicle journey? I have looked at the source and it doesn't say. This matters because while a car may have about two passenger journeys for every vehicle journey, an airplane probably has on the order of 100 passenger journeys per vehicle journey. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was the one who originally found that. I think all the numbers are relating to the passenger, so deaths per passenger kilometre, deaths per passenger hour, and deaths per passenger journeys. Autonova (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Design[edit]

Aerodynamics[edit]

There is no section on the design. Some designs such as the Belly tank design should be mentioned. See the Bill Burke and Alex Xydias cars and the recent GM Performance Division Ecotec Lakester 2006

Perhaps a aerodynamics section could be made. 81.241.103.12 (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would fit in this article, but you could write a new one.EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, a section should be made regarding the size. Some manufacturers such as The Naro Car Company have very small cars (ie Naro) designed to allow more cars to drive the streets. Other cars are the foldable car from MIT Media Labs, the adaptive suspension car (CLEVER) invented by Benjamin Drew (see http://royalsociety.org/CLEVER---Compact-Low-Emission-Vehicle-for-urban-transport/)Cars are a mans best friend.

217.136.152.213 (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also notable car designers as Luigi Collani (http://www.colani.ch/visions.html; yellow hydrogen-car), Coqueline Barrière/André Courrèges (Zooop; see http://www.gizmag.com/go/5844/) Syd Mead, ...

Future car technologies[edit]

Perhaps modular cars can be mentioned, such as the GM Skateboard; see http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=293 KVDP (talk) 14:46, 26 April 201 (UTC)

Cite error[edit]

Someone should probably add text to reference 10. People might want to get to the site. JRLivesey, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Residents of low-density, residential-only sprawling communities are also more likely to die in car collisions"[edit]

Here's a source for that: [1] 204.52.215.13 (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of vehicle safety template[edit]

You might be interested in discussion Vehicle safety template at Talk:Motorcycle. --Dbratland (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Driverless cars[edit]

Can the section also describe the research involving the creation of the "automatrix" ? This would be a system that shares information between cars, and supposedly (according to a Discovery Channel; see http://www.yourdiscovery.com/video/future-cars-automatrix-online/?cc=US ) documentary would also be involved in controlling the vehicles by improving the flow. See http://gm.web.cmu.edu/research/index.php , http://gm.web.cmu.edu/research/index.php

The text currently at the section should be moved to a new section "Virtual cars" 81.245.93.161 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jehenton, 26 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

  Please replace reference to "CAM" under "Data Transmission" heading to "CANBUS"  with link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_area_network
  I have never heard of CAM, and it's probably a typo of CAN.

Jehenton (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks! SpigotMap 12:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from JJszanton, 8 July 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} i have found information on the invention of the first automobile, which info has not been correctly included in the history of this machine. The following quote i have copied from THE ONYX by Jacqueline Briskin,who got her information, as noted in the above book from THE AUTOMOTIVE AGE..., by michael e. knes i quote,"The first road carriage powered by an engine was invented by a German Jew named Siegfried Marcus in 1864 and roused interest only in the police, who barred the noisy little contraption from the streets. The idea languished. In the 1880s two other Germans,Gottfried Daimler and Karl Benz, working independently of each other, ..."

JJszanton (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. And, please, could you indicate more bibliographical bits of info about the book (publisher, year, ISBN and so on)? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Siegfried Marcus is mentioned in the text of this article, in History of the automobile and has his own page. The information in this article is, as far as I can see accurate and I do not believe that any more is needed. In case you hadn't realised, Jacqueline Briskin is a fiction writer and her novels should not be used to reference articles such as this.Malcolma (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

History[edit]

following line creates the idea that steam cars were unsuccessful:

In Britain, there had been several attempts to build steam cars with varying degrees of success, with Thomas Rickett even attempting a production run in 1860.[15] Santler from Malvern is recognized by the Veteran Car Club of Great Britain as having made the first petrol-powered car in the country in 1894[16] followed by Frederick William Lanchester in 1895, but these were both one-offs.

--> Can't this be changed to something like

"In Britain, steam cars began emerging, yielding production units with varying degrees of success. In 1860, Thomas Rickett started producing steam cars in large numbers, and companies such as Stanley Motor Carriage Company, Doble Automobile, McCulloch Motors Corporation, ... quickly followed. Santler from Malvern is recognized by the Veteran Car Club of Great Britain as having made the first petrol-powered car in the country in 1894[16] followed by Frederick William Lanchester in 1895, but these were both one-offs."

thanks, 91.182.140.59 (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as Thomas Rickett is concerned, the original wording is correct. He made at most three cars which is hardly large numbers. His significance is that he advertised the cars (possibly the first car advertisement but I can't source the claim) and attempted to interest people in buying more but without success. The makers you then quote are from much more recent times so are not relevant to the argument.Malcolma (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Durability[edit]

Another issue that isn't mentioned in the article is the durability. Allot of cars have been/are being produced to only last for a very short time. In particular, the material of which the frame/chassis is made is too corrosive. Appearantly, some cars such as the Ford Edsel were already worn by the time they gotout off the production plant. Cars from the 1950's had a half-life of 1 year. This hasn't always been like this however, ie the KdF-wagon, built in pré-WW2 Germany appearantly were made from very good materials, and lasted very long. [1][2][3] add in article. 91.182.130.229 (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the brief paragraph that your reference from Time claiming the Ford Edsel was "already worn by the time they gotout off the production plant." This reference contains only random musings, sweeping generalizations, irreverent humor, and hyperbole that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Another problem is the definition of "durability" of vehicles. It is often subjective and depends on the use and maintenance by the owner. A perceived "good" or high-quality car can be driven into the ground very quickly an owner, while a vehicle that has a "poor" image may provide reliable service and long-life for someone who takes care if it. Furthermore, there are no "perfect" products and every automaker has encountered problems in their production. Some examples are well known (such as Chevrolet Vegas), while others seem to have been forgotten how bad they were, (as in the case of the rapidly rusting Honda Civics and Accords - see: Jim Dunne "Detroit Report" Popular Science December 1981‬‬, Vol. 219, No. 6, Page 8. I think adding such material in this article would not seem to be very beneficial. CZmarlin (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tjips (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Please change the sentence "In the United States the average passenger car emits 11,450 lbs (5 tonnes) of carbon dioxide, along with ..." (under the "Environmental impact" heading) to "In the United States the average passenger car emits 11,450 lbs (5 tonnes) of carbon dioxide annually, along with ..." The quantity has no meaning without a timespan of some sort. The referenced source gives the unit as "Total Annual Pollution Emitted .." Thank you. Tjips (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for pointing out the missing "duration" - CZmarlin (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate[edit]

According to most Urban Organizations, like the Urban Land Institute, the Wikipedia Page on High Speed Rail, trolley, other Public transits, and the book People, Cities, Planet: Cars are responsible for most economic woes in the Western World and is the worst thing to ever happen to cities towns. E.g. the area of NYC increased over 60% while the population increased only 5%, and that is taking into consideration that New York is still largely transit based. Suburban Sunbelt cities like Dallas show an all out sprawl to the areas around. This creates inefficiency for everything and make cars the only practical form of transportation(like Orlando, my previous residence). I think this page should mention that the Urban future can not be a bright one with cars dominating. There a reason why China is using 60% of its stimulus for High Speed Rail and why people have now seen their errors and are now struggling to get back on board and away from cars.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
more relevant to the article Effects of the automobile on societies. Malcolma (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Still deserves a mention on this article. There are plenty of sources so that shouldn't be a problem.ThisguyYEAH (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Should human powered vehicles be included in this article??[edit]

I am wondering why human powered vehicles (re the two Russian inventions listed) are included in this article, when this article, by nature of the word 'automobile', is about mechanically powered vehicles? I have already edited the entry re Ivan Kubilin's invention in which it was previously asserted, without any evidence in the references cited, that he invented a flywheel, differential, transmission etc which seems inaccurate (why would a bicycle of sorts need a flywheel anyway?).

We should reconsider the relevance of these inventions to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illdz (talkcontribs) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Winter Cars?[edit]

Just something I was musing: in Canada (and many other northern countries I would assume), it is not uncommon for some people (particularly car enthusiasts or collectors) to maintain two or more vehicles - one to drive during the good weather season, and a second for use more-or-less exclusively in the winter. The winter vehicle (often colloquially referred to as a "winter beater") is often older and of lower value, sometimes AWD to deal with snow. The main motivation for the winter beater is the higher probability of severe collisions during winter as well as the damage caused by large quantities of grit and/or salt deposited on the roads during the winter months, making the winter beater a type of "sacrificial lamb" to the season, so that the more desirable/expensive/enjoyable summer car remains in better condition.

Obviously there would be a fair amount of legwork that would have to go into finding reputable sources on the subject (although there's no shortage of popular references to the subject)... But I thought it might be of interest to readers from warmer climates who perhaps might not have ever heard of this practice before.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --Aidolon (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a widespread practice in the UK, AFAIK. OK not as 'north' as Canada, but not exactly tropical either. More common is the practice of owning a classic or open-top car which is only driven in fine weather -- possibly contributing to the widespread notion of a 'Sunday driver' (usually 'older', sedate, cautious, not in a hurry, wearing a flat cap...) -- but essentially for the same reasons as above -- EdJogg (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

File:1893 Duryea Motor Wagon.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:1893 Duryea Motor Wagon.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias in Article?[edit]

At nearly every turn in this article there is a finger wagging comment about how automobiles are bad, destroy the environment, ruin the world, etc. Whether or not that is the case, I question whether this is neutral at all. If there must be such comments, I think they should be placed in another article. This is supposed to be an article on automobiles. I reads like a political polemic. Andacar (talk) 04:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Most people enjoy the freedom they provide. Xsnoxerx (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 222.127.29.66, 29 July 2011[edit]


222.127.29.66 (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to make a specific request when using that template. If you do, change 'yes' to 'no' in the template to re-open the request. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Omissions[edit]

Why is de Dion Bouton not mentioned in the article, especially since their initial automobile predates Benz, was also designed form the ground up as an automobile and not a "horseless carriage", and they and not Daimler were the earliest largest auto manufacturer. (Besides which the term automobile is French in origin...). The article seems slanted toward internal combustion powered vehicles, despite the fact that the term "automobile" does not imply or require a specific engine type. Also, with reagrd to the citation of Mrs. Benz making the first road trip in 1888, De Dion had done so the previous year when he was the sole competitior in the first motorized competition, cited in the Wikipedia article about De Dion Bouton: "The Marquis de Dion entered one of these in an 1887 trial, "Europe's first motoring competition". Teh aformentioned article contains all of the information omitted from this article, which secures De Dion's place as predecessor to Benz, et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.22.237 (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Automobile.jpg]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.251.40 (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Bollée vehicles?[edit]

This article is ridiculous. No mention of the first production cars? with things like 4 wheels, independent suspension, gearbox, rear wheel drive, doing 30-40 mph, etc? 86.20.150.77 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect photo[edit]

The photo of a "Model T" opposite the picture of Henry Ford is actually a Model A.76.114.136.44 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Mention cyclecars[edit]

cyclecars such as the Morgan Runabout were sold in far greater quantities than 4-seater cars in this period[4] so mention them in article

Suggestions for improvement[edit]

Hello, the section Driverless cars should be merged into the section Future technologies. The section Mass production should be merged into history, but some of it could go into the section Industry. The section Open source development should be removed altogether - who geek added it?! ;) The Criticism and Alternatives to automobiles sections should be combined. We can discuss these changes here, but I'm pretty sure these changes would improve the article. --91.157.12.243 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Also the section Costs and benefits could be merged into the Criticism and Alternatives to automobiles combined sections: these three could be under the title Costs and benefits. --91.157.12.243 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
After the history section there should be a title "Technology" or something like that where the sections: Weight, Seating and body style, Fuel and propulsion technologies and Safety would be as subtitles. This "Technology" section would be about the car itself, its parts and technologies. We can most likely come up with a better title though. --91.157.12.243 (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The section Industry could be named "Manufacture of automobiles" or something similar. --91.157.12.243 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Most popular form of transport[edit]

On the BBC Two programme "Genius of Invention" on February 6 2013, it was announced that the car was the world's most popular form of transport. Should the popularity of the car be mentioned in this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit request[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add 'For the country see Central African Republic' at the begginning if possible, thanks. Ahendrl (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's already listed at Car (disambiguation). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and it shouldn't. It has a link to a relatively unknown magazine at the front and a country stays at a disambiguation page among twenty other articles? If the only thing you know about the country is the abbreviation it'll take quite a while to find it out unless you make a travel to Google.Ahendrl (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hatnotes like this are as much lexical as topical. Where there's a redirect like this, we have a strong need for a hatnote about the magazine, because naive readers typing its name in will have arrived at this similarly-named page. Readers who typed "car" will have arrived here too, but with somewhat less confusion. We already have a substantial disambig page at car (disambiguation) and Central African Republic belongs there, not here. It's already there, and has been for some time. There are far too many "car" possibilities to start listing them individually on this page, which is why we use disambig pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
this is not at all true please look up true info on www.ask.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.241.51.50 (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC) 

Car salvage[edit]

This article doesn't seem to discuss about vehicle recycling nor wrecking yard. Shouldn't these be mentioned since it is like "the end" of automobile's life? sentausa (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

History - big problems of chronology[edit]

There is a problem with dates in this section. The chronological order is absolutely not respected, in particular this article speaks of one of the first cars produced in 1997, then speaks about Daimler first cars in 1992, and a few lines after it talks about the cars produced earlier in 1990 by Panhard !!! This is very very confusing and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.237.171 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Equipment / engine information and photos of typical cars needed[edit]

This article needs information on equipment and engines, as well as photos of typical cars. --81.129.18.164 (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 June 2013[edit]

"The average vehicle running on diesel fuel will emit 10,1080 grams of Carbon Dioxide." Please change the number of grams in the sentence above from 10,1080 to 10,180. The reference linked to the sentence provides the correct number which is 10,180. Slammin1 (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svg Done GB fan 13:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Siegfried Marcus inventor of the Car[edit]

An Austrian Jew is the real inventor of the first modern Car! Fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.203.43 (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources so that we can verify that statement? GB fan 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.viennareview.net/on-the-town/scenes-of-vienna/the-forgotten-inventor-of-the-motor-car http://www.rokemneedlearts.com/carsindepth/wordpressblog/?p=5702 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.211.195 (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather interesting claim, and I wonder if there is any contemporaneous references (i.e. pre-1938) that might support the proposition, as the two above are hardly definitive. I am quite intrigued by the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry which suggests there is some merit in reviewing this in a little more detail. Warren (talk)

Car[edit]

May I ask why, if Car is a redirect to this page, that it is not the name of this article? Automobile has WP:ENGVAR issues, in that it is primarily an American term. "Car" is universal and used by everyone, and hence should be the title per WP:COMMONALITY, especially as there are no disambiguation issues. RGloucester 20:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by requester due to lack of consensus. RGloucester 23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)



AutomobileCar – I am not normally one who proposes change for change's sake, but I think this article is an exception. Car is currently a redirect here. However, I do not think anyone will dispute that "car"7 is the common name used by the majority of English speakers. This is true, certainly. A more important issue, however, is that "automobile" is a chiefly North American term. It is rarely used in the United Kingdom, even though it would be understood, and I'd say is perceived as what one might call an "Americanism". This entry in the Oxford English Dictionary confirms this. In Britain, the more traditional "long-form" name is "motorcar". However, I would never propose that we use another term that is specific to a certain dialectal mode. Instead, I propose, that per WP:COMMONALITY, the term "Car" be used as the title for this article. "Car" is the common name for this device across the world. It is understood everywhere, and is used by everyone. This certainly applies to neither "automobile" nor "motorcar". This is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. WP:COMMONALITY trumps that, and regardless, car is not specific to any dialect, and is perfectly acceptable to Canadians, Americans, British folk &c. The title of this article should certainly be "Car". RGloucester 15:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Confused oppose - I'm British and i don't understand this one...We change Automobile to Car right? Then what about automobiles that aren't cars? Pickups, vans, buses, etc. Do they then need a separate article? This doesn't make much sense to me. Automobile - Vehicle maybe, but not to car. I'd be asking the same if you had suggested Automobile - bicycle. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 22:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I can't see any great benefit to this change. Also 'car' can refer to train carriages.  Stepho  talk  23:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • First of all, the issue with "car" referring to railway carriages is nonexistent. As I mentioned, car already redirects here, with a hatnote already in place. This is clearly not a disambiguation issue at all, or else car would not redirect here presently. Second of all, buses and trucks are not "automobiles" either, according to the Oxford Dictionary. The only definition it is given, according to the OED, is "car". They are exactly equatable, and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that referred to trucks as "automobiles". Also, just because "automobile" is used by some technical, specialist origins does not mean that it is not chiefly American. The OED clearly states this. RGloucester 02:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This, this and this are automobiles but they are not cars. GB fan 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This was debated some time ago (see the talk archive), and no new comments here make a case to change. Could add to the examples above and include Royal Automobile Club, Automobile Club de l'Ouest, and Fiat Automobiles. Warren (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose The generic term also covers a variety of other things called "cars", all of which will need to be dab hatnoted (or hatnoted to a redirect). To what end? Should Car be a dab page, instead of a redirect? Maybe. This is the term describing the subject, & AIUI, WP:Commonname doesn't govern in this instance. Nor, IMO, should it. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I guess people are contesting the OED, then. Just because a company from a non-English speaking country uses the "automobiles" doesn't mean that it is not chiefly American, and not a commonly used term in Britain other than for specialist uses. Second of all, according to the OED, as in the definition I linked, pickups and vans are not automobiles. I would agree. I would never call them as such. I shall link the definition again for posterity. Look at this entry from the OED. An automobile is a "car". It is not different from a car. It is also chiefly North American. At Wikipedia, do we not follow what the sources say? Finally, there IS NO DISAMBIGUATION ISSUE. Car already redirects here, with a hatnote. If there was an issue, it would not redirect here as it stands, but instead would send one to the DAB page. But it it doesn't, because an "automobile" is most certainly the primary topic one is looking for when one searches for car. RGloucester 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the disambiguation issue: It could be argued that 'car' should redirect to the disambiguation page instead of relying on a hat note. I could live with either.
Regarding the claim of American nomenclature: There are plenty of other articles using American terms as the name; eg trunk (automobile), tire). 'Automobile' is well attested in most countries as the proper name, even if it isn't the first choice in casual conversation. Whereas 'car' is often used almost in a slang way as shorthand.
Regarding which vehicles are included: I agree with you that sedans (saloons), wagons (estates) and anything based on similar chassis can be referred to as either a car or an automobile. I would not include US style full-size pickup trucks, nor full-size delivery vans. Passenger car based vans and coupe utilities would be a grey area. But the distinction applies equally well to both car and automobile and is a discussion for another time.
To my mind, there is not a great deal to recomend either over the other. If we were arguing about changing 'car' to 'automobile' then I'd probably also resist the change.  Stepho  talk  23:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The difference between this as and "trunk" or "tire" is that, per WP:ENGVAR, those articles should article should remain at "trunk" and "tire" because there is no term that is shared amongst all varieties of English. However, in this case, WP:COMMONALITY, which trumps ENGVAR, dictates that if a term is shared by all varieties of English, it should be used in preference to dialectal terms. Second of all, Wikipedia does not choose names based on their formality, but on how common they are. So it doesn't matter whether "automobile" is the proper name, which it isn't it traditional British usage, where it is considered an Americanism in favor of "motorcar".
Finally, as far as what is a "car" or "automobile", I agree with what you've said. Wikipedia guidelines would favor "Car" over "automobile". That's certain. However, I've acknowledge the lack of support for the move, regardless, and have decided to withdraw the proposal. RGloucester 21:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. Automobile is clearer and more precise in this instance. - WPGA2345 - 03:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not to accuse anyone of bias but when every single opinion is an oppose, except for the nominator, then how do you then get "no consensus"? That's the clearest oppose i've ever seen, in opinion and force. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 09:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No consensus in favour of the requested move. And he withdrew the request voluntarily. All done in the proper manner.  Stepho  talk  13:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm just saying...The consensus was no to a move, just semantics. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
It is standard practice to use the phrase "no consensus" regardless of how many "opposing votes" there are. No requested move is ever closed as "opposed". Instead, one phrases it like was said above "No consensus to move", which means that consensus was against moving the article. As it was, and hence my withdrawal. I mean no subversive intent. RGloucester 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries RGloucester. Devil's advocate and all that. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 16:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this article about automobiles or cars?[edit]

The proposal to move this page to car failed, partly because "automobile" also refers to other types of vehicle and not just cars, but those opposing the move seem to have not noticed that this page is just about cars, with the wider topic of all road vehicles covered within the vehicle article. If there is a difference, should this article be split? Peter James (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As I linked in that discussion, the idea that "automobile" is different from car is not supported by the OED. Regardless, as far as I can tell, this article is about cars. It is not about heavy trucks/lorries, tractors or anything else of the sort. All those sub-topics have their own articles, and whatever little information on them that exists in this article should most certainly be split off. I don't, however, think there is much to split. RGloucester 19:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It's a question for editors who opposed the move - if they are different then based on the current content this should be at car. I don't think that they are, but support the move, based on commonality and common name. The spell checker in Firefox doesn't recognise "automobile", and suggests "auto mobile". Peter James (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe it is a little late, even if we wanted to move the article and split it, we could not do it for a while, since the previous RM was so near in the past. I mean, we could, but that is usually frowned upon. Of course, my opinion was already pre-determined. Let's see what the others think. RGloucester 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
People, why make something that easy so hard? Let's just integrate a section for "Types of automobiles", so you can refer to trucks, tractors or whatever. :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No, let's not. Because the OED says that trucks are not automobiles. RGloucester 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Safety[edit]

I added a link to Low speed vehicle at the safety section, but I think that vehicles that have lower amounts of horsepower (10 HP or less) should be mentioned, as these could allow passing a law for reducing the maximum amount of horsepower on all cars. See Talk:Green_vehicle#Power rating KVDP (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) How stupid indeed. Automobile should cover more than car (judging by comments on the move request). But actually, the other types which it should cover are mostly not addressed in this article. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Horseless Carriage.[edit]

Was a common name back in the day. It should be included. 19:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.51.136 (talk)

?[edit]

Why?
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).