Talk:Car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Automobile)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Car 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
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.


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)

cars[edit]

The usage of Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Cars (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

World vehicles per capita[edit]

Use the nicer colors of the older PNG file, new colors do not contrast the colors by making the all into shades of green

The better old colors World map of passenger cars per 1000 people

The horrid new colors World map of passenger cars per 1000 people

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.105.99 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Horrid? That is a matter of taste - I quite like it. The old image is almost useless for people with red-green color blindness. The new image uses brightness to show the numbers.  Stepho  talk  22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Misleading caption[edit]

The caption of one picture says

Ford Model T, 1927, regarded as the first affordable American automobile

This implies that the 1927 version was the first affordable one, whereas actually that was the 1908 version. I suggest the following replacement caption:

Introduced in 1908, the Ford Model T is widely regarded as the first affordable American automobile. Shown here is the 1927 model.

Also, is the qualifier "American" necessary? 208.50.124.65 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the picture caption claim as not cited and confusing. Warren (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference date format[edit]

Please note that yyyy-mm-dd is allowed in references even though the main text uses d mmm yyyy. This is allowed by MOS:DATEUNIFY.  Stepho  talk  03:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is allowed, but I do not find it preferable. Regardless, let it be. RGloucester 03:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm with RGloucester on this - Most users here prefer one or the other and I prefer it as it's consistent ... YYYY-MM-DD is IMHO outdated. –Davey2010(talk) 04:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.  Stepho  talk  01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It doesn't matter what your opinion is; YYYY-MM-DD is a superior |date= format in that it presents the most important information first, followed by the less important information, and considering that humans read left to right, I would consider DMY to be the most inferior format possible. I don't see why YYYY MONTH DD isn't the international standard, to be honest. Regardless, it shouldn't be based on preference; if it was YYYY-MM-DD before, it should remain that way, and the same applies for the reverse scenario. Dustin (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Er, in traditional Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, one reads right-to-left in vertical writing. Vertical right-to-left writing is still standard in Japanese literature, as I'm quite aware. Arabic is also read right-to-left. The idea that "humans read left-to-right" is bizarre. Regardless, this article was in DMY to start with, but reference dates were in the odd, awkward, and foreign format I've never seen outside Wikipedia called "YYYY-MM-DD". MOS:DATEUNIFY allows DMY body with YYYY-MM-DD reference dates, but does not favour them. It favours uniformity, on the whole. It is up to us to interpret the guidelines. I prefer unity, personally, given the name of the guideline. As I said, though, I'm not keen to change it here. As a matter of fact, it is based on "preference", i.e. the preference established by editors through editing. That's why we have DMY and YYYY-MM-DD here to begin with. RGloucester 02:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • With all respect Dustin We all have our preferences and I've stated mine, You prefer one format, I refer another so saying "It doesn't matter what your opinion is;" is quite frankly a pathetic thing to say. –Davey2010(talk) 02:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It still doesn't matter what your opinion is in this situation, it matters what reasoning you use to back it up (I was referring to RGloucester then, and initially, the only statement from that user was "It is allowed, but I do not find it preferable. Regardless, let it be."), and my statement is not pathetic. And in what way is YYYY-MM-DD "outdated"? As a database format, I can at least say that even if not necessarily "left to right", computers read from "beginning to end". That, I believe, is part of the reason for which in certain situations, YYYY-MM-DD is preferred. I do not believe that this should change, and I expect editors in the EU and other places using DD-MM-YYYY to disagree with me, but I still would like an answer as to why less important date information that alone is useless should be present before the more important date information which, even alone, could be used. Say you take the date 2014-08-24 vs. 24 August 2014; 2014 alone works, 2014 August is better, 2014 August 24 allows you to narrow down the date before you have even finished reading it. Now look at it the other way; 24 is useless alone. 24 August is still not particularly helpful as it could be from any period in a range encompassing over a hundred years. Only when you have the entire date of 24 August 2014 is it of any use. While when you consider the rate at which most people read, this particular example would not make a significant difference, it highlights my meaning in that it is more logical to present essential material before less important material. Even if it is a very small scale and it mostly only makes a difference when processing dates with software, if it makes even a slight difference in any matter, why present the specific figures before the broad figures? Written out 2014 August 24 is not a widely accepted format (I am not sure if there are any situations where it is actually used), but at least 2014-08-24 is in a somewhat common format, so why not use it? Dustin (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe in mathematics, so your illustration is lost on me. I prefer to use what is traditional (and if I had my way, I'd be writing out "24th day of August in the year of our Lord two-thousand and fourteen"), not what is logical. I don't see how any of this is relevant here, however, and hence it should be truncated. If you'd like to propose universal adoption of your favoured date format, MOS:NUM is open to you. RGloucester 02:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'm surprised that someone actually read my too-long statement above. I don't even care much about this particular situation anymore. Dustin (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I read everything, dear fellow. Always good to make sure no important snippets of information slip through the cracks of time. RGloucester 02:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Outdated? Have they revised ISO 8601, then? Or is international standardisation outdated too? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@SamBlob: What do you know... I thought DMY was the international standard, but it seems that YMD is the standard. Thank you for pointing that out. Dustin (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Er, that is for technical and specialist use, and has no relation to common usage amongst people. RGloucester 21:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

summary[edit]

the into should say: "A car or automobile...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.67.121 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – Per Wikipedia:ALTERNATIVETITLE, if there are at least three alternative names, a separate section should be used. We have that section already. RGloucester 18:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Article titles[edit]

"Car," although sometimes used in general to refer to automobiles, more commonly refers to any automobile that is not a truck, minivan, motorcycle, etc. This usage of "car" is what the article appears to chiefly discuss. "Automobile," in general usually refers to any motor vehicle on wheels that is not a train. The article motor vehicle is chiefly about that, but "automobile" seems to be used more. I suggest "Automobile" be redirected to motor vehicle, and maybe in the future, be moved to automobile if that can be confirmed as the WP:COMMONNAME. Qxukhgiels (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lorries, vans, &c. are not "automobiles" according to the OED, as demonstrated above. Furthermore, "automobile" is an Americanism. RGloucester 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
According to what I've been able to dig up, the term "automobile" arose in the early days of the auto industry, as a term for what we'd call cars. The first motor vehicles, for a long time, were only passenger cars. This appears to be the origin of the term "automobile" relating to cars. I'm going to look some more.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, automobile doesn't appear to be used anymore. Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There should be an article to differentiate the car general land vehicle (trucks, minivans, etc.) from the smaller vehicle that is also referred to as a car more specifically. It's like that thing where people try to call boots shoes, but in reality, they should be differed. Luckily, there is the term "footwear" in that situation, but I don't see any article dedicated to general civilian land vehicles. Dustin (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Motor vehicle. RGloucester 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've been able to find, the term "automobile" arose in the early days of the auto industry to refer to motor vehicles, in general, and since the only motor vehicles at that time were what we'd call "cars," this appears to be synonymous with motor vehicle. Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not according to the OED, for the nth time (it says that "automobile" is a chiefly North American way to refer to "cars"). By the way, if you have access to the full version of the OED with etymological details and stuff, it provides the following more detailed definition:

2. Chiefly N. Amer. A road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal-combustion engine), esp. one designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers; a car. Now chiefly in formal, commercial, or journalistic contexts, car being the usual word in informal and spoken English

An "automobile" is a "car", as it says. RGloucester 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2015[edit]

In the second para, pls change the sentence that reads "Both fuels are known to cause air pollution and are also blamed for contributing..." to read, "Both fuels cause air pollution and are also blamed for contributing..."


Succinctness rules.


Thank you.


Wsdarter (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Mlpearc (open channel) 23:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Autogas (LPG) as an alternative fuel[edit]

Good morning!

As I cannot perform the change myself I present it here for some helpful volunteer to take on this task.

The reference to alternative fuels misses the fuel with the largest group of users world wide. Autogas (LPG) is used in nearly 25 million vehicles around the world (mostly cars), the bulk in the Asia Pacific Region and in Europe. It is only surpassed by ethanol which is used predominantly in the US and Brazil and is mixed to varying levels with gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/market.html

I therefore suggest the following change: "Vehicles using alternative fuels such as ethanol flexible-fuel vehicles, Autogas vehicles and natural gas vehicles are also gaining popularity in some countries.

The term Autogas vehicles should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas

Thank you very much in advance!

Mr. Autogas (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)