Jump to content

Talk:Car/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"Motor Car"?

the term "motor car" is more common in British English... well, not since about 1950. Angie86 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This will be a matter of varying personal opinion. "Motor car" is certainly a bit more formal and "posh" than "car", but is still widely used. "Automobile" just doesn't sound natural at all to this British English speaker; in the circles I talk in, at least, it'd be taken to be an American English word.


I agree - the word (or even it's shortened form 'Auto') just isn't used in British English. Motor Car would sound archaic to most people - although you do hear some London dialects using just "Motor" - as in "Is that a dodgy motor?" - meaning "Is it stolen?". SteveBaker 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Not wanting to stir up a hornet's nest, but I'm pretty unhappy with the whole definition of automobile we have here. Trucks and vans, whilst they can often carry passengers, are not "passenger vehicles", and so should be omitted – all the dictionary definitions I can find say an automobile is a passenger vehicle. It's also worth noting that Princeton University defines an automobile as having four wheels. (See the final definition of the several in this dictionary entry.) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess the Americans would have to speak out then. Perhaps the American standard is that the automobile is what the article says, and then we might just add a section explaining that it is an American term and how such vehicles are called in other countries. I am perfectly comfortable with the definition as we have it there now, so I believe if we find that it does not fit the name of the article, we need to change the name. The definition is OK. The only other phrase that comes to my mind is "motor vehicle", but aren't locomotives and airplanes motor vehicles? Bravada, talk - 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if we're talking about "common usage" then the American editors will obviously know best about how it's used. But those dictionary definitions are United States dictionaries, not English ones, so personally I'd like the article to make it clear that it's a broad definition of the term. Of course, we all know "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" but that doesn't mean it should contradict dictionaries! ;) – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 14:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
But trucks and vans are fast becoming cars - a vast number of people here in Texas drive 'extended cab pickups' that have four seats and are used precisely as family cars - almost never carrying anything in the bed of the truck. Then there are these crossover vehicles that can be converted into either an SUV or a pickup truck bed - and the SUV is certainly merging with the 'car' into something in between. I think it's wrong to leave out SUV's and pickup trucks from the 'automobile' catagory. As for the Princeton definition of requireing four wheels - that leaves out an enormous class of three wheeled vehicles that you'd certainly have to define as 'cars'. The Bond Minicar for example. SteveBaker 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


I Need Help with my project on the car

Can any one tell me Who invented the car Where they come from When it was invented and where it was invented and any other facts about the history of the car

You should read the article rather than expecting one of us to spoon-feed you with an answer. You only have to glance at the first two paragraphs of the History section. Everything that everyone here knows about the subject is (of course) already in the article. The truth is that no one person invented the car. Every single part of what we'd consider to be a car was around before anyone bolted them together. SteveBaker 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Leading photograph for the article

Responding to the request to place a photograph of an automobile at the beginning of the article—I chose one of the first four-wheeled model built by Karl Benz. The Velo model is not the original automobile for which he received the patent—which had three wheels—but it is the next version, closely resembling the original, and, the Velo is the model Karl Benz entered into the first automobile race. Therefore I felt it was appropriate as an honor of his invention, the beginning of motorsport, and more representative of most automobiles that followed. A photograph of the first Benz automobile, the 1885 Benz Motorwagen, already is placed near the photograph of the inventor, appropriately where it is visible while readers encounter its historical significance in the text.---- kb - 2006.05.07

I think this looks very nice, and quite appropriate, thanks! I took the liberty of removing the request notice. All we need now is some references! Walkerma 08:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

500 million cars worldwide?

Ther is now way that there are only 500 million cars with 220 million in the US. First off lets use logical estimates. Asia has about 3 billion- and the richer countries like japan, taiwan, korea, at least have 100 million cars. Plus china has an additional 25 million at minimum. Europe should have the same number of cars as the US has and South American should have a smiliar number also. There are at least 800 million cars world wide.
I've removed the reference to the number of cars in the USA from the introduction. It makes sense to give the global total, but not for only one country. Markb 12:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos

On the photographs, there are only American cars. Europe and Asia also produced some cars (I think quite early ;-). So if someone has some photos of non-American cars lying around at home and is willing to donate them to Wikipedia, I'd be very pleased ... --zeno 00:52, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

PS: I also miss a link to license plate (just added it)

I fear you're mistaken. The picture at the top is clearly European about 1980 or so; as the the photos at the bottom, the first five cars are American but the next two are British, the third international (the Ford Focus). There follows an Australian car, two American and a Russian. There's definitely an American bias to them, but not exclusively. There aren't any Japanese cars there, though. —Morven 05:29, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Just a quick extra comment - the selection of vehicles in the photo collection seems somwhat surreal to be honest - would it be possible to add some more historically important or iconic vehicles? In my opion, an article about cars could could use photos of cars such as the VW Beetle, Rover Mini, Citreon 2CV, Model T Ford, Willys Jeep, Land Rover, VW Golf and Jaguar E-Type. Maybe someone could add to the list? There are already some pictures available in the wikipedia for some of these (see below ), I'm sure there are more too. Plus, they would look better in historical order (IMHO). unless anyone has a reason for the current selection I shall make a start in a couple of days. akaDruid 15:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Be very careful, though, that any list of 'historically important' is not US-centric, UK-centric, Euro-centric, or whatever. It would be an easy trap to fall into. Though I guess that's what Wikipedia process is all about; if someone doesn't like it, they'll fix it.
Which brings about the question: what cars are in the international 'historically important' list? Most of yours above are probably in there, though I'd argue that the 2CV represents a long-lasting and popular dead end rather than being a vehicle that inspired many others, and that the E-Type, though famous and sexy, isn't really developmentally that big a deal. The Land Rover, though ubiquitous, started life as but a British Jeep and evolved in no shocking or landmark-making ways. Though it depends what criteria one uses, of course! I'm probably coming from a 'influential to other designs' direction in those criticisms. I don't think many would argue that the Model T, Jeep, Beetle, Mini and Golf were milestone cars, but there have to be others. —Morven 16:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
My opinions are in danger of being UK-centric :) What do people think about trimming the current display too? While the Chryslers and Saturns may be nice cars in themselves, I don't know if they belong here. At the very least, I shall start by tidying it into a the order it was intended, then add some of the agreed pictures. akaDruid 09:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
OK, done the above. Layout much better, and added photos of: Model T, Jeep, Beetle, Mini, Golf. What else? Fiat 500? I would like to see the E-type there. It was more of a milestone within the sports car market, rather than the car industry as a whole, but I think it was a major shift in design, marketing and consumer expectations. Performance and handling were miles ahead of it's time. I think we should add some more important modern cars too - maybe the Renault Espace, Smart car? Neither very attractive cars in my book, but much more influential than the existing new car photos. What about an influential SUV too? I don't much about SUVs I'm afraid. akaDruid 10:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Some thoughts at this point: Nice pictures, though I'd say that Model T is a rather unrepresentative example, being a late-model non-black version! An earlier T would be better. Also a little more cropping, that's a bit too large.
The Fiat 500 was pretty influential but not so much so as the Beetle and Mini, so it can probably be left out, though I'm open to persuasion.
As to the E-type: I have a suspicion that it was a critical point in the UK but not in the USA. Maybe an E-Type *and* an early Corvette, both rather groundbreaking in their respective markets?
You're right -- something of the people mover/minivan nature should go in, that was a major shift in the market. Either an early Chrysler minivan or an Espace, I'm not sure which preceded which but both were pretty much the same concept. Since I left Europe pre Smart Car I have no idea of its influentialness.
As to SUVs, the groundbreaking vehicles in the USA, in terms of the evolution from the mere 'Utility Vehicle' to a car replacement, are probably the Jeep Cherokee and Ford Bronco/Ford Explorer.
I suspect we need a bit more text around these pictures, and I'm wondering if we are eventually going to need to move most of them to an article like Pictorial history of the car or something of that nature. Since we seem to be arriving at the conclusion here that we should be having important historical cars here rather than just a random sampling of vehicles.
We should also ensure that any picture we move out of here gets put in the right article for what it is, too. —Morven 21:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Could we get some text around the top picture? What is it some odd layout of parking lot? Also I woul suggest that the open hood picture is not very illustrative as it shows neither the car nor the engine compartment well. Rmhermen 21:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah we should find another picture of the T, that one happened to be the best I could find that was already on the Wiki, I found it from the article.
As far as th

Pickup Truck

The "Pickup Truck" is a purely American and fairly inappropriate name. The catagory should probably be 'Utility vehicle'. Along those lines, in the opening sentance under "general" it describes a vehicle that is capable of off road travel as an SUV... This is not really accurate. It would be a truck or a utility vehicle that is preferable for off road travel. 210.50.30.22 11:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd disagree; as an Englishman (albeit living in the US now) -- the words 'pickup truck' are quite familiar to a resident of the UK also, and I suspect to most of the world. 'Utility vehicle' to a British or American reader tends to imply something that isn't a pickup bed truck, most likely a Land Rover or other kind of enclosed-bed off-roader. I assume you are living in a country neither the UK nor USA, since 'utility' tends to mean 'pickup truck' only in places like South Africa and Australia. The problem with replacing 'pickup truck' with 'utility vehicle' is that you are replacing a regional term recognised by maybe 70-80% of native English speakers with one recognised by only 20-30%. Your regional terminology should not be privileged above someone else's just because it's a non-US variant.

Instead, I'd like to ask:

  1. For what populations are the words 'pickup truck' incomprehensible?
  2. Is there a term those populations would recognise that is ALSO recognisable by those who use the existing terminology, that's succinct and not a description? I have a strong suspicion that the answer to this is no.
  3. Is it better to just add a parenthesised explanation after the link for those

who don't recognise 'pickup truck'?

I do agree that the American use of 'truck', unadorned, to mean pickup trucks primarily is confusing to everyone else, and we shouldn't be doing it in articles not specifically about US topics. —Morven 19:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "utility" is not in common usage here in South Africa. We have a bilingual term, originally from Afrikaans, which is "bakkie". This is used for the vast majority of cases when refering to, well, bakkies. Failing that, the next most common term for them is "LDV" - light delivery vehicle. Of course "bakkie" would be wholly unacceptable for the purposes of general classification here, but I thought I'd clear up the slight incorrect inference above. --196.2.127.9 9 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Categorization

How should automobile types and manufacturers be categorized? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Categorization and help us decide. —Morven 19:48, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Etymology of the term, automobile

Automobile seems to be a compound Greco-Latin term meaning "self moving", which would be an adjective. Would the complete term at some time have been "automobile carriage"? - knoodelhed 18:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, it was a French coinage; whether "carriage" was at first attached, I can't say. "Horseless carriage" was an early term, yes, but... Trekphiler 21:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Motorwagen was the German term created by the inventor, Karl Benz, in the application for his patent for the first motorized passenger vehicle put into production. That German term translates into, a passenger vehicle with a motor that propels it. Although the word, automobile, also may be used as a compound adjective (in English, the word was used as a compound adjective derived from Greek and Latin roots in France during 1883), the term automobile is most often used in English as a simple, undivided, noun—first occurring around 1890 when it was coined to mean a passenger vehicle that "moves by itself"—in order to differentiate between ones that do not, and ones that do, carry their own source of power to move. There are lots of assumptions in this use considering that the definition of life includes movement by itself. People, horses, cats, fish, worms, and sunflowers (when they turn to follow the sunlight) are capable of movement, but do not contain a motor (which are inanimate creations by humans) to enable natural motion, nor are they passenger vehicles. A mobile is considered a thing that is designed so that it can move if it is stimulated by something else—such as a breeze or heat currents. It follows logically that a vehicle named an automobile is designed so it can move via power provided by itself. In 2006, Merriam Webster defines the noun, automobile, as, "a usually four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation". Isn't etymology fun? ---- kb - etymology of noun, automobile 2006.05.07

After seeing a revert on an added external link and it being re-added on the justification that it was no more commercial than the others, I removed almost all of the external links. Most of them were specifically about car accidents anyway. If this page is going to have external links, they should be relevant to the general topic of automobiles, not about specific things. —Morven 03:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Automobile article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Automobile}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Auto Repair

--> I don't know where else to put this. Can we add a section about consumer rights and tips re: automotive repair? (i.e. how to protect oneself from unscrupoulous mechanics, regulatory bodies in different states and countries, etc.)? Info on internet search engines is scarce, so I don't know the first place to look. (I'm new to Wiki, so if this is bad taste or not in spirit, just let me know).

This should be at car

As "car" is the most common term, and "car" is used throughout in the article - I've suggested on Wikipedia:Requested moves that this page is moved there. jguk 09:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can the gallery of pictures at the bottom of this page be replaced with a link to the car page on the commons? - SimonP 07:38, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)


car/automobile population

Where would it be possible to find data on the total world car population? It would be very helpful to make a graph and plot car population vs time.

Well, according to this site: http://www.bigpicturesmallworld.com/Global%20Inc%202/pgs/repcorp/motor_b.html

There are over 510 million cars in the world today. I don't know how accurate that figure is though. Would be interesting to know how that compares to earlier years and make educated projections.

Here is some info from the reference desk in wikipedia: [Follow this link] Seems like 500 million is a good estimate. Hope that helps. 64.12.117.10

Purchasing an automobile

I'm looking at the phrase 'test drive' right now, which is presently pointing at a videogame. In looking for a disambiguation strategy I find that there seems to be nothing in Wikipedia about buying an auto (or other vehicle). Buying an auto is almost ritualistic in the United States and could make for an interesting article ... or an addition to this one.

Which would be better ... to add a section to this article or to start another? In the event of starting another, one might start a trend toward 'purchase' articles for other objects that have particular issues around buying them, such as homes, works of art, insurance policies, etc. That's why I hesitate to just 'do it' because it doesn't seem to be a place where Wikipedia has gone up to now.

My vote (nice if you could add yours here too) ...

alternative fuels

I just want to point out that using 100% Bio-Diesel in modern diesel engines is actually not advisable. Mixtures up to 30-50% are no problem, but anyhting higher quickly becomes problematic. Modern common rail fuel injection systems need modifications in order to preheat the fuel and therefore reduce its viscosity, they need significantly stronger pumps and best would be a different set of injection nozzles ... All older diesel engines (80ies to mid 90s) can run with tiny modifications (the preheater) on nearly 100% Bio-Diesel without problem. These cars only experience a significantly higher wear of the fuel pump system, which usually fails fairly quickly. It is therefore very strongly advised for anybody seriously changing to bio-diesel, to have a spare injection pump system lying in the boot.

Must add a voice of agreement here. Bio-Diesel is not going to work very well without huge modifications to most modern diesels.

Add a section to this article Courtland 00:48, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Puzzle

"There are offers to get a new car for free or get paid to drive them in return for displaying advertisement on the cars, and hence only available to individuals of certain profiles."

I have two questions:

  • What the heck does this mean?
  • Does it belong in an encyclopedia article on automobiles? I think not.

Walkerma 18:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what that's about. I'm generally hesitant to remove information in cases where I might just be ignorant, but this seems suffciently silly that it can be safely removed until somebody can elaborate on it. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Minimum number of wheels?

The intro paragraph currently states:

An automobile is a wheeled vehicle that carries its own motor.

Are motorcycles automobiles, then? What about a motorized tricycle? Is there a minimum number of wheels that should be mentioned? — mjb 04:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can't be four, or else Reliant's would be unjustly excluded... --Kiand 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I's four in most countries. Ericd 08:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Auto, 4; cyclecar (such as Reliant or Moggie), 3. In the article? Trekphiler 21:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Hey, how about a motorized unicycle!!!

The word "automobile" says nothing about the number of wheels. auto = self, mobile = moving. An automobile is a machine that moves under its own power, in other words. A (future) hovercar would still count, and have zero wheels. So yes, a motorcycle is an automobile, as would be a motorised unicycle. The problem is the term "automobile" as used by Americans and almost no-one else. If you mean a CAR, then say so. Graham 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Explain which car classes there are : A, B, C, and so on --84.153.104.154 17:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Cugnot?

Needs examination. I've read there's serious Q his tractor ever actually ran. Trekphiler 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pedestrian dangers

I realize some might feel this topic is more proper to pedestrian than automobile, but I recently saw this article on the dangers faced by pedestrians in the United States (and, by extension, the industrialized world), and wondered if anyone knew any particular article that on which it might be appropriate to link to it. (e.g. carfree-themed articles, criticism of cars articles, etc). Thanks for your help! --Dpr 06:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just dangers to pedestrians and not just in the industrialised world. Car drivers are actually killed more often than pedestrians if memory serves me right. And although poor countries have fewer cars, they have their fair share of road kills (partly caused by more chaotic traffic I imagine). The total death toll of cars was 25 million according to a BBC documentary I saw a few years ago. To place this in perspective, in the US, cars take just a few months to equal the death toll of 9-11. And that's every few months. The article says a few things on the subject, but way too little given the gravity. And then there's nonsense like saying that alcohol and other drugs are a major factor. They only play a role in a few percent of the accidents, I believe. That's sort of like blaming something else and ignoring the real danger, which is that almost anyone is allowed to drive a car (after some relatively minor testing) even though it is basically heavy machinerey. If this were done in a company it would get some serious law suits for creating lethal conditions. But under less controlled circumstances (on the road) it is allowed, the obvious result of which is the huge death toll. Cars are the biggest death cause for young people (half the people killed are under 35 years old). At least in the Netherlands, and I assume the US won't be much different. There should be more figures, and not just at the end of the Safety section, but at the beginning. DirkvdM 11:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Lighting

I've just noticed, nothing was said about it. Very important advances attrib to Laplace (I think, the gas lamps), electric lights, sealed beams, projector beams. And something I've seen attrib to James A. Ross (Halifax) on 30 Dec 1919, the first backup light. Trekphiler 05:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

History

The car was inevented by Cral Benz; Why wasn't that added? Gerdbrendel 09:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

CAR vs Automobile

Comment: Exception to the rule: I noticed much discusion about car's but the title of this article is automobile. I for example own a power-assisted bicycle, which is considered a motor vehicle, a moped, and sometimes a motorcycle. I need to get automobile insurance, hence in my jurisdiction of Ontario, it may be considered an automobile. This example puts into question the title of this page. user:CyclePat 18:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Photograph of First Car?

Can we post the photograph of the first car? What was it? Since we're talking about the history of the automobile, wouldn't it be appropriate to have photos of the first autos, their inventors, first drivers, etc. We know the Wright brothers invented the airplane and we know what that looked like...why not the automobile? If anyone has it, please post it as I think it would significantly add to the article's historical insight. I can't believe this has been left out.

Photograph of 1885 Benz automobile and the inventor

Added a photograph of the first automobile put into production and one of its inventor, Karl Benz. Cleaned up some of the Engilsh as well. --- k 2006.03.25

Prices?

Would any readers like to see vehicle pricing information being incorporated into each model-specific article? Moreover, would you like to see pricing information in the infobox on each page? (Template:Infobox Automobile generation or Template:Infobox Automobile) There is an discussion here. Shawnc 12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

History

Can someone with the knowledge tidy up the history section? It seems to imply that the car was invented sometime in the 1880s, yet in the 'Internal Combustion Engine' (ICE)section it states that both Brown and Morey built cars powered by an ICE in the 1820s. Markb 12:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The first internal combustion engines were static and stationary—they worked on a table, bench, or the floor—and were very limited in function. First attempts to create automobiles using internal combustion engines were not sucessful or, never repeated beyond the testing stage. They were crude attempts to adapt other devices into becoming automobiles. The vehicles you mention were never put into production and in fact, were put aside by the inventors. If they had been useful, that would not likey have happened. In 1878 Karl Benz began to design and patent engines that could be used to drive vehicles efficiently—and that also could support the engine and its fuel as well as carry passengers and their parcels. Several early versions were quite difficult to drive. In 1885, Karl Benz designed and built the first automobile he could put into production. He was granted a patent on January 29, 1886 (for the automobile as a whole, not for the engine) and was already making them for sale. Patents lapse if the invention is not built or produced within a specified period. Later in 1886, Daimler and Maybach built the first motorcycle that was driven any distance and tried to adapt a horse-drawn stagecoach into a motorized vehicle. They went on to design and build their first real automobile in 1889 which they could put up for sale. (Prior to Karl Benz's viable automobile there were many attempts to create vehicles that would move by themselves. Leonardo da Vinci envisioned it and experimented with the idea. People put early engines on boats, carts, wagons, and stagecoaches to try to convert them to mechanical drive, but the requirements for continuous operation are too demanding to be able to adapt makeshift attempts. Usually these beat themselves to death, being unable to withstand the violent mechanics. With inventions, often parallel technologies have to develop or discoveries have to be made before a giant step may occur) -- but of course, you knew all that! In the same fashion people state that the Indians of the New World never invented the wheel—when in fact, there are many examples of four-wheeled toys from the earliest cultures in the New World. Just because the principle was not applied to larger scale can not justify the statement, but it certainly describes the reality of transportation devices used, or rather, not used. Karl Benz continued to invent improvements in engine design. In 1896, Karl Benz was granted a patent for his design of the first boxer engine with horizontally-opposed pistons, a design in which the corresponding pistons reach top dead centre simultaneously, thus balancing each other with respect to momentum. Flat engines with four or fewer cylinders are most commonly boxer engines and are also known as, horizontally-opposed engines. Today this design principle he patented continues to be used for high performance, automobile racing engines such as Porsches. ---- kb 2006.05.06


The automobile is an 18th century invention: How come there is no mention of the 1771 "Fardier" by Joseph Cugnot ? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FardierdeCugnot20050111.jpg ) Same remark for the Amédée Bollée creations between 1873 and 1881( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bollee_mancel.jpg and http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9d%C3%A9e_Boll%C3%A9e ) Is it because they used steam instead of Beau-de-Rochas/Otto cycle ? What about automobiles that use batteries, fuel-cells, solar power, Stirling engines ? [O.R.]

O.R.: Early steam-powered vehicles, such as Cugnot's and those built by the Bollees (as well as those built in Britain, Austria, and Germany), were notable and innovative machines. However, they didn't initiate an industry the way IC-engined cars did. The early examples mentioned were few and far between, with not even a hint of series production. Even the steam-powered vehicles that did later enter production (Stanley, etc.) were overshadowed by IC-engined cars. Same with early electrics. The mass-production industry we know today was the product of the IC-engined car, the first production model being the Benz, which was Karl Benz's own design. There can be no question about this. The earlier examples of IC-engined vehicles, like Lenoir's, Marcus's, Delamare-Deboutteville's, etc., (1) weren't very successful (Lenoir's was heavy and slow, used lighting gas in heavy bottles, and broke down often; Marcus's had no seat and steering wheel and couldn't be controlled well; DD's vehicle's frame broke during the first trial; and all of the above and the others not mentioned were adaptations of horse carts, wheel barrows, and the like, and were cobbled together crudely, with no real design in mind), (2) didn't enter into production, and (3) were mostly unknown, and so didn't inspire anyone and no-one based their designs on them. That is why they can't be regarded as the ancestors of the modern car, innovative as they may have been. As I state in the main article, if none of those experiments had been conducted, the development of the automobile wouldn't have been retarded by so much as a moment, since Daimler and Benz knew nothing of them and didn't base any of their work on them, but all of the first cars that followed Benz and Daimler based their designs on those of the two Germans for a time. In a short time, improvements were made, especially in France, which took the lead in automotive design, and the rest is history.

move to Automobile on wheels

Just saw this -- I think that—automobile—is ubiquitously recognized as a motorized vehicle on wheels -- and does not need to be defined further. No one launches into a discussion of planes, sleds (snowmobiles), boats, or trains in discussions of automobiles. Makes no sense to me and makes me realize how much would have to be redefined and rewritten to achieve such a mico-division. I would have to vote against the proposed move. ---- kb 2006.05.06



I think somebody should write about the different kinds of engines:

-V shaped -L or in line engine -Rotary engine -H or Boxer engine -quasturbine engine -Flex fuel engine -and lets not forget the Hybrid engine

I'm sorry I couldn't write about them.

Alromaithi 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I seriously need help?

At school, my group is doing a project and out topic is "Stunts in racing movies" (cars. I've been looking everywhere on the internet, but i can't find anything, please help:

How long does it take to film a stunt?

How are stunts filmed?

What safety precautions are required in settung up + preforming stunts?

How long does it take to master a stunt?

What driving skills are involved?

What risks are you taking when doing stunts?

How is music used to heighten stunts preformed in racing movies?

How long does it take to film a stunt

what type of cars are involved on the stunts?

please help any way you can.

Pece Kocovski 03:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You could try our article on car chase for a start. Beyond that, you might want to get hold of a special-edition DVD for movies that feature car chases. The director's commentry audio track, and the making-of advertising documentaries that they tack on, will often feature information about how the chase was filmed. Beyond that, there have periodically been articles in various magazines and newspapers about filming car chases. But to find them you need access to a library with a subscription to an electronic newspaper archive. --Robert Merkel 04:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible rewording of opening paragraph

Considering the importanc of this article i thought it best to as for a consensus before making an edits to the opening paragraph.

From An automobile is a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor. The word is mainly used in American English and Canadian English; in British English the term motor car is more commonly used.

To An automobile or car in British English is a wheeled passenger vehicle that is self propelled using an onboard motor.

I ask if this or something along these lines is better as at the moment a automobile is anything that has a motor that onboard but could use another source of propollsion like a horse and can still be considered an automobile.

An i also simplified the whole use of car as i thought it went the long way around things and also have car in opening sentence allows us British people to know straight away that we have the correct page.

I look forward to your constructive comments TheEnlightened 18:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

i also need help can any one tell me when the car was invented and by who, where and when thanks

World production figures

I have added the world country by country production figures for 2003 source OICA - www.oica.net - unfortunately I dont know how to make a table - If somebody can do the honours plaease —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Lack of Sources

The lack of sources in this article is a pretty serious issue. A proper application of the verifiability policy would probably remove around 90% of the article. I'm going to try to add a few references and citations and at least tag the claims most in need of work. Could I ask some other interested editors to help do the same? Thanks, Gwernol 14:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Car

Quite ridiculous that "car" redirects here. Either this article is about more than cars, and car should have its own article as a daughter of this, or this article is about what everyone except old-fashioned Americans call "cars" - and it should be at the most common name.

zoney ♣ talk 10:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm highly inclined to agree: even USians don't seem to be entirely sure whether the term includes motorbikes, trucks, and what-have-you. On CFD I'm told it doesn't, but by the scoping statement of this article, you'd think it was essentially a synonym of motor vehicle. Non-cars have their own articles, so this really does seem to be the car article, transported to 50s America. I tried to do a googlefight between "automobile" and "car", but the Boxing Board of Control declared it to be a mismatch. Alai 07:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Future of the Car

This section is particularly egregious in its lack of citations. Again, I've tagged some of the worst bits, but I am going to start mass deleting large parts of this section unless someone starts finding specific citations and adding them soon. Gwernol 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the most egregiously unsourced and speculative material from this section. Please do not replace it until there are reliable sources to back up the additions. Thanks, Gwernol 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Benz invented?

In one of the Dr. Z commercials Dr. Z says they invented the automobile but the article mentions Rivaz. Ok so maybe we need to be clearer about qualifiers. --Gbleem 01:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"In 1806 François Isaac de Rivaz, a Swiss, designed the first internal combustion engine (sometimes abbreviated "ICE" today). He subsequently used it to develop the world's first vehicle to run on such an engine that used a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen to generate energy. The design was not very successful, as was the case with the British inventor, Samuel Brown, and the American inventor, Samuel Morey, who produced vehicles powered by clumsy internal combustion engines about 1826."

The claim is also made that Benz invented the carburettor but the Carburetor article says otherwise. A check via Google brings up lots of people with claims to be the inventor so I am removing the Benz claim from this article.Malcolma 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring this Article

I think this article needs major restructuring. It has a split personality - it can't decide whether it's going to be a 'gateway' to lots of other information about automobiles - or whether it's going to try to do the whole job by itself. IMHO, it should be the former...it should be light on text and heavy on links. To that end, I spent an alarming number of hours sweeping up all of the car parts articles (only about 1/3rd of them are correctly added to the AutoParts category), sorting them and tabulating them. More work of that nature remains to be done.

Additionally:

  • The History section is growing - and doing so in ways that sometimes contradict or expand on the main 'History of Automobiles' article. In my opinion, this whole section should be reduced to just a couple of paragraphs summarizing the history - with maybe one photograph. We don't want to have to maintain two completely separate articles on Automobile history - and we are rapidly heading in that direction. I believe we need to have a minimal amount of information for someone who just wants the 'cliff notes' version - and to strongly encourage people to read the main article.
  • The Design section has the opposite problem. It needs some modest expansion to a couple of paragraphs so that someone who only needs the briefest of introductions doesn't have to read the whole of the main article on that subject.
  • The Alternative Fuels and Batteries section again is too long - and just like History should devolve to the main article on that subject.
  • The Economics section is heavily biassed to a US market and to people driving a certain type of car. The ordered lists of cost of ownership is just nonsense for someone (like me) who owns a 40 year old car that's gaining value and a 2 year old car (a MINI Cooper) that's depreciating at about $500 a year. I'm going to be bold and move this entire section out to another article - it just doesn't work here - and it really needs a total rewrite to be more country-neutral and more carefully researched.
  • The See also section is a really ill-planned list of random links. Why is 'GPS' there yet 'Car Engine' isn't? GPS has almost nothing to do with cars - Car Engine is a really obvious thing one should also read. This isn't just a list of stuff we tack thinks onto at random - it needs to be carefully planned. IMHO, there are hundreds to maybe thousands of other articles that relate to Automobiles - and the tabular approach that I've started to put together in the 'parts of cars' table is the only way to meaningfully organise this large article space for our readers. I intend to add more of those tables in the future - but tracking down all of the articles in a poorly catagorized space is very time consuming.

SteveBaker 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for beginning the discussion on that! This is going to be tough, as the topic is broad and not-that-well defined. First of all, the article begins with the statement that "an automobile is a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor". OK, but is a truck a passenger vehicle then? I'd say a truck is a kind of an automobile just as well as a bus is. So, we need to define the scope of the article (and perhaps then rename it accordingly):
  • only cars, vehicles designed to carry a limited number of passengers (how many, btw), or all motorized road vehicles?
  • only ICE vehicles, or all type of motorized vehicles, including electric and (!) steam road vehicles?
I am for the broadest meaning of the word "automobile" here, though given how it originated in the early years of combustion-engine powered vehicles (and, concurrently, electric road vehicles), we might describe all previous self-propelled road vehicles with only a few sentences in the history section.
I believe the important issues to be covered here are:
  • Basic principles - what is and what isn't an automobile, what types of automobiles there are, how are they used, how many automobiles there are etc. I can think of a map describing e.g. how many vehicles per person are there in given countries/regions.
  • History (obviously), in a limited form, and generalized (not US- or Western World-specific). rather than mentioning who designed the first tailfin, it would be important to show how the number of automobiles manufactured and operated throughout the world changed through the years.
  • Technical issues - what technical solutions are/were used in automobiles, including engines, drivelines, chassis details (suspension, axles etc.), bodies - basically all issues linked to in Steve's great two tables at the bottom of the article should be introduced in this way or another. Moreover, the links are currently oriented around modern, ICE vehicles, but the article needs to deal with more general issues, including historically-used solutions and technologies used in non-ICE automobiles.
  • Economic and sociological importance - this is a rather important topic, introducing such issues as passenger vehicle transport etc. I guess the "economics of car ownership" is a rather minor issue here, it can be linked this or another way from the body of the text, especially given the poor state the article is in now.
  • The future of the car is a very dangerous section which induces speculation and promoting of some ideas, concepts or products. I believe this can be dealt within the history section (if it was brought up to present years - the description of the current situation would include most trends that started to develop) and the technology section, regarding alternative and developing technologies. An appropriate balance should be struck - by no means should "future" or "alternative" technologies take up more space than current or historic. If needed, some additional articles might be created (though I think most of them already have their articles).
I believe the most important section, and thus one that should be the most developed, is the technology section. History and economic/sociological impact could be of more or less equal length IMHO. The introduction could be expanded, I think. Regards, Bravada, talk - 20:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Dammit, I forgot about the automobile industry (broadly understood, i.e. including suppliers, cooperants and companies down the value chain, like dealers or fleet operators) and some notes on the production processes - these could be discussed within economics or perhaps in their own section, similar in size to history and economics. It might be hard to make the divide between industry, economics, technology and history though... Bravada, talk - 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Perhaps the industry section should be secondary to all other - issues should be introduced in them, and only expanded on or referenced to in the industry section? I wouldn't like, however, the history section to develop into "history of the automotive industry", as it is often written about.
Right - the issue of 'what is an automobile' is very tricky. I'm British - and it's a word we don't often use - but my understanding is always that it meant any vehicle that carried it's own means of propulsion onboard...so a pickup truck would certainly be an automobile. But then I don't think many Brit's would say that a railroad locomotive or a back-hoe or a ship was an automobile. The definition for me seems to be something like "a car or a pickup truck or a panel van or an SUV - but not a motorbike and not an 18 wheel truck.
We need to look at what new sections we need. The biggest gap seems to be that there is no overview saying "How a car works" that says stuff like "The engine drives the gearbox which drives the differential which drives the wheels." or "Fuel is pumped from the gas tank into the carburetor by the fuel pump - air is drawn in through the air filter and mixed with the gas as it's pulled into the cylinders - a spark burns the fuel and the gasses that creates pushes down on the cylinder before being pushed out of the exhaust pipe." You and I find that stuff so obvious that it doesn't need saying - but children coming here to write a 6th grade report on "The Car" may not.
I think a section on motorsports is needed - perhaps something that says more about pollution and urban sprawl and such...maybe that should be in 'Economics & Societal Impact'. The 'Future' section is tricky. We shouldn't be talking about anything that's not true yet. However, it would not be out of place to talk about research that's actually going on - designs that have been demonstrated...stuff like that.
I've been spending most of the afternoon trimming down some of the bloated sections in the article that are backed up by more expansive articles. The History section is next - but that's harder because much of it (but not all of it) is duplicated in the History of the Automobile article. What's amazing is when you look into a specific subject area (like 'brakes' for example) - you find a bunch of articles tagged with categories - so you can find them - but so many more really interesting subjects are written about - but not well categorized or widely linked to. Tracking those down is quite time-consuming - but also very rewarding - it's amazing the sheer breadth of information in Wikipedia. SteveBaker 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely right here! OK, with most of what you say - I would disagree with not including large trucks as automobiles. I would still define an automobile as a "road vehicle propelled by an on-board engine and at least three wheels", which includes both cars, buses and trucks of all kind. There is some problem with trikes and quads, but this is not meant to be a legal definition or anything :D Anyway, trucks are usually left aside when talking about automobiles, and I guess there needs to be a "branching out" done to van, truck and bus at some point (with those articles next in turn for attention of our WikiProject), but I wouldn't want to exclude any of them. Perhaps we need articles on both "car" and "automobile" and divide the content between them? (on consideration) What we need are a few good dictionary/encyclopedic definitions of "automobile", so that we stick to the lexical definition. We can then decide whether it fits the current article or whether it has to be split into car/automobile or expanded with buses, trucks etc.
As concerns the issues that I agree with you on completely :D The technology section should be formed along the lines of "how it works" obviously, not some technical guide only understandable for somebody who already knows the topic. I wouldn't delve into the peculiarities of the ICE too much, though, as not all automobiles are powered by them and there is a separate article (though a brief explanation of what happens inside the engine would of course be indispensible).
On the other hand, the wondrous "alternative" fuels and propulsion systems billed as "innovative" here are in most cases just as old or even older than the petroleum-fueled-internal-combustion engine-powered motor car concept itself, with it being the "alternative" vehicle for some time. I believe the article should clear that out and not follow the current fad of wowing those technologies as "innovative" and "new" - all should be described in appropriate sections of "how it works" and to some extent "history", with the latter perhaps mentioning how interest in those has risen in the recent years due to this and that.
The "future of" section absolutely has to go (and perhaps the article too), I hate those sections as they are a backdoor (or, should I say rather a major busy gateway) for all sorts of speculation and promotion of all kinds of everything. An encyclopedia does not deal with the future - perhaps it is a drawback, but still. If there is something actually going on, it can surely be described in the technology or history sections (the latter should end with something like "recent history", shouldn't it?)
I am not really into motorsports, so I completely forgot about it. There should be a section on it for sure, perhaps much smaller than the others, directing the users to different articles, but it definitely has an important place in this article. Depending on how the "impact" section would be written, it could be either a part or standalone - I can't make up my mind, as I can imagine different versions.
I really admire all the work you are doing. I am one lazy bum not contributing, but I don't really feel to well with such big tasks - I guess I am more of a "detailist" than "generalist", I like working on small details and smaller things, but I often get lost in the big picture. So, I am hoping that with your help the article will reach a manageable form and then we will be able to fill in the gaps and polish it. Perhaps it would be good to maintain a list of the issues that the article should cover/questions it should answer? All from me now, as I am getting sucked back into the mysterious world of the fabulous Simca Vedette :D Bravada, talk - 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. I was wondering whether your wonderful tables could serve as navigational templates for the groups of articles they include - of course, it would require a more manageable size/form. I'll think about it in due course ;D


An Automobile is a Car - it's official!

OK - my exhaustive (and exhausting) search of dictionaries (both online and 'dead-tree-format') reveals:

  • The Pocket Oxford dictionary : Automobile: Motor Car - then Motor car: A car propelled by a motor for use on roads. Car is defined as Car: A chariot or wheeled vehicle.
  • Chambers Etymological Dictionary: Automobile: Motor car - then Motor car: Car driven by motor - to convey or travel. then Car: A vehicle moved on wheels as an automobile. Nice - circular definition!
  • The American heritage dictionary: Automobile: A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
  • Princeton's WordNet: Automobile: 4-wheeled motor vehicle; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine; "he needs a car to get to work" [syn: car, auto, machine, motorcar]
  • MerriamWebster online: Automobile: a usually four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation
  • MerriamWebster Word Central - Student dictionary: Automobile: a usually four-wheeled vehicle with its own power system (as an internal combustion engine) designed for passenger transportation on streets and roadways
  • YourDictionary.com: Automobile: A self-propelled passenger vehicle that usually has four wheels and an internal-combustion engine, used for land transport. Also called motorcar.
  • Cambridge disctionary of American English says that automobile and car are synonyms and then says: Car: a road vehicle with an engine, usually four wheels, and seating for between one and five people
  • Encarta: Automobile: A passenger-carrying road vehicle: a road vehicle, usually with four wheels and powered by an internal-combustion engine, designed to carry a small number of passengers
  • InfoVISUAL.info: Automobile: road vehicle that is motor-driven and is used for transporting people.
  • Wiktionary: Automobile: From auto-, self, and mobile, as the vehicle is powered by an engine rather than pulled by horses. 1. (US): An enclosed passenger vehicle powered by an engine.
  • Wiktionary: Car: 1. A vehicle that moves independently, steered by a driver mostly for personal transportation. See also motorcar or automobile.
  • Wordsmyth: Automobile: a four-wheeled vehicle with a built-in, self-propelled motor requiring a driver and used on roads to carry people; passenger car.
  • Infoplease dictionary: Automobile: a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheels and a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine.
  • The Online Etymological dictionary: Automobile: Meaning "self-propelled motor vehicle" is from 1895.
  • Ultralingua: Automobile: 1. A motorized vehicle, esp. a small passenger vehicle; car. 2. Any vehicle which provides its own form of locomotion, such as an electric motor or combusion engine.
  • The Online Plain Text English Dictionary: Automobile: An automobile vehicle or mechanism; esp., a self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway. Automobiles are usually propelled by internal combustion engines (using volatile inflammable liquids, as gasoline or petrol, alcohol, naphtha, etc.), steam engines, or electric motors. The power of the driving motor varies from about 4 to 50 H. P. for ordinary vehicles, ranging from the run-about to the touring car, up to as high as 200 H. P. for specially built racing cars. Automobiles are also commonly, and generally in British usage, called motor cars.
  • Rhymezone: Automobile: 4-wheeled motor vehicle; usually propelled by an internal combustion engine
  • Allwords.com: Automobile: Motor car
  • The Colombia Encyclopedia: Automobile: self-propelled vehicle used for travel on land. The term is commonly applied to a four-wheeled vehicle designed to carry two to six passengers and a limited amount of cargo, as contrasted with a truck, which is designed primarily for the transportation of goods and is constructed with larger and heavier parts, or a bus (or omnibus or coach), which is a large public conveyance designed to carry a large number of passengers and sometimes additionally small amounts of cargo.
  • Encarta - North American edition: Automobile, self-propelled vehicle used primarily on public roads but adaptable to other surfaces. ... Automobiles are classified by size, style, number of doors, and intended use. The typical automobile, also called a car, auto, motorcar, and passenger car, has four wheels and can carry up to six people, including a driver.

So - what should we conclude? I think by far the majority of those definitions agree that an automobile is a car - then define that as something that 'typically' has four wheels (so three wheeled cars aren't excluded but motorbikes pretty much are) - is self-propelled - and carries one to five (or two to six or ...) people (more or less excluding SUV's) - and also is primarily for passenger/personal transport - so excluding pickup trucks and panel vans.

From this, I'd say that the title section of this article has it about right and that we don't have to change a thing. An automobile is a "car". SteveBaker 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work! Its certainly enough to convince me (with perhaps the exception of SUVs which I think mainly are automobiles.). Anyway, this is very good sourcing work, congratulations. Gwernol 02:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
SUV's are certainly borderline. Some of those definitions allowed for up to six passengers - which annoyingly covers some SUV's but not others. Other definitions don't impose a maximum number of people - but that can't be intentional since they don't appear to be trying to include Busses or Mini-busses with a dozen or so seats. In this decade, the border between cars and SUV's has blurred considerably - large hatchbacks, station wagons and mini-SUV's are pretty much identical things. Since there is no really bright line, I think we can leave this suitably vague - we can talk about SUV's if we feel the need. After all, we aren't going to exclude vehicles with more than 50 horsepower(!) or those that don't have an internal combustion engine - so we can't keep in line with all of those definitions. The main finding (I believe) is what we can safely exclude: motorbikes (definitely too few wheels), pickup trucks (not primarily designed for passenger transport), busses (designed for too many people), railroad locomotives (don't run on roads) golf carts and go-karts (not principally designed for road use) and horse-drawn carriages (not self-powered). What we normally think of as 'cars' get to stay - and we can feel reasonably comfortable with including such borderline cases as three wheeled cars, station wagons, smaller SUV's (with 6 proper seats but maybe 7 people if you squash them into bench seats), electric cars, stretched limos and so forth. SteveBaker 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. The opening paragraph needs editing, since it states that automobiles include trucks, pickups, motorcycles etc. I think the following needs to be removed: "Different types of automobiles include cars, buses, trucks, and vans. Some include motorcycles in the category, but cars are the most typical automobiles." Gwernol 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh - yeah - one other thing. In reading/searching all of those dictionaries, I discovered a curious linguistic thing. Whilst it's pretty clear that 'Automobile' refers only to things we'd call 'Cars' - the word 'Automotive' appears to refer to all kinds of road vehicles - including busses, big trucks, etc. We may want to watch out for the implications of that. For example - we have two articles that sound like they should be merged - and which both contain a merge recommendation tag at the top: Automotive design and Automobile design. Armed with our new dictionary definitions, we could reasonably argue that they should NOT be merged since the first should be talking about all kinds of road vehicle design - whilst the second should specialise in cars alone. Of course the articles aren't written that way - but maybe they should be? SteveBaker 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, you have done an absolutely stunning amount of research here! Still, I would be careful about "excluding" different vehicles here, as everything we exclude needs its own article written ab ovo, which can be hard without referring to this very article. I'd say a more "middle of the road" approach may be beneficial - saying that "the automobile" can be everything mentioned in the first paragraph now (or did you change it already?), but most commonly it refers to a passenger car. This way, we can describe some basics in this article, and will not have to repeat them for every kind of motor vehicle that is not a two-wheeler :D
I was also wondering about the definition of the "motor car", which might be a more "catch-all" phrase here (or perhaps I am wrong). My inclinations in this direction stem from the fact that the Polish equivalent, "samochód" (which is roughly a direct calque of "automobile") is usually defined as every road vehicle that is self-propelled and is not a motorcycle, which encompasses trucks "samochód ciężarowy", buses etc. Such definition makes it easier to describe all kinds of motor vehicles related to the "automobile" described above. The articles on the "samochód" usually concentrate on passenger cars in the latter part, but thanks to the general description in the opening part, descriptions of trucks, buses, vans and whatnot can focus on the specific characteristics of those and do not have to delve into the history of the internal combustion engine and such.
I would also not exclude SUVs or even vehicles carrying more then 6 passengers, such as minivans. Or perhaps we just need to sort that all out when dealing with specific sections of the article. I guess we just need to make sure that related articles, such as truck, van, minivan, bus, pick-up truck etc. are compatible and "begin where this article ends". Regards, Bravada, talk - 10:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
(Yes - I already changed the title paragraph to define Automobile correctly - but to leave open a small chink by saying that the definition is vague).
Well, we can't lie about what an automobile is. That's just completely out of the question. I seriously doubt there is some compelling definition of automobile that I missed - given the body of well-respected dictionaries from both UK English and US English that I checked. If we want this article to cover a wider range of vehicles than just cars and (maybe) SUV's then we need to change it's title. It seems reasonable to me that this article needs to cover things like pickup trucks and small panel vans - but should it cover busses? 18 wheelers? Golf carts? Go karts? Motorbikes? Gasoline powered rollerskates? The problem is that once we widen the scope - where do we put the new cut-off? What snappy title do we use instead of "Automobile" ? We can't go as wide as "Wheeled vehicle" because we'd pull in horse-and-cart, railroad locomotives and bicycles...which we definitely don't want. "Wheeled Road Vehicle" gets rid of railroads - but leaves us stuck with horse and cart and bicycles. "Self-powered wheeled road vehicle"...urgh!...this is starting to sound like "Just the things we want to talk about and not the things we don't."
Sadly, you are wrong about the word "Motorcar". It doesn't help. According to the many of the definitions I found, British English has the term "Automobile" and "Motorcar" as synonyms - so Motorcar also means "cars but not pickup trucks". In any case, "Motorcar" is a term that NOBODY uses anymore - not Americans, not Brits and probably not other English speakers either - British English speakers probably stopped using the word back in the 1930's or so. Everyone contracts it to "car" which brings us right back here. I'm a Brit (but I've lived in Texas for 14 years) - I would never consider using 'Motorcar' in speech or writing in either place - and even if I did, the meaning would be "Car...and maybe SUV" - just like "Automobile".
I think this rejection of 'motor car' is a mite too radical. I have seen the word 'motor car' in use much later than the 1930s or 1950s, which is the ridiculous assertion made by some in this talk page. I live overseas and don't have a lot of contact with English speakers, but I have seen it in written reports (written by an English-speaking colleague) in the 1990s. And as someone has pointed out, 'automobile' just doesn't cut it! As a technical term 'automobile' is probably the most internationally accepted term, but as for regarding it as a neutral, standard term for a car, there are too many people who don't accept 'automobile' as anything other than an Americanism.
If you do a search of UK, Australian, or South African Google, for instance, you will find the word 'motor car' still quite common, in very recent articles. The direction of change seems to be towards 'automobile' as the standard term, but the claim that 'motor car' is a totally outdated term that nobody now uses is completely false.
Bathrobe 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, (and as a native British English speaker) I agree that "motor car" is no more inclusive than "automobile", and no more appropriate for the project, but I also agree that rejection of "motor car" as an archaic term is too radical – and "sadly, wrong". I'd tend to say "car" but if being formal or "flowery" in my language, I'd be much more likely to say "motor car" and almost certainly wouldn't say "automobile"; that's just the way I've received the language. I'd never just say "auto", but it's not unheard of (especially in some regions of the UK) to say just "motor"! Anyway, this doesn't help move us forward, I just wanted to add to the weight of evidence behind "motor car" still being a current, valid term. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Since we don't want to have to repeat a bunch of this stuff for trucks, busses, etc - we need to find a more inclusive title for this article.
  • You could list the classes of vehicle we want to talk about into the title: "Automobiles, Trucks and Busses" or something - redirecting to it from Automobile of course. The problem is that if we change the scope we have a slightly strange boundary for the new article. Start thinking about golf-carts, motorbikes, powered bicycles...does the title need to mention every one of those in order to include them? Yuk!
  • We could try to write a title that described the definition of what we want "Wheeled, self-powered road vehicles with three or more wheels". This would almost certainly pull in things we didn't really want to include - and it's a really ugly title - but at least we can redirect to it from Automobile and Car.
  • We could search for a better word - I'm not sure one exists. I should re-do my dictionary search for the word "Automotive" - that does seem to have a wider meaning (weirdly). Someone who designs busses would talk about himself as an "Automotive designer" - but he doesn't design "Automobiles".
So I guess I would vote for changing the article to Automotive technology or something - then in the first paragraph, listing the kinds of vehicle that comes under that term by defining "Automobile" as "cars and SUV's", "truck", "bus" and so on. Something like:
 Automotive technology is a broad term that covers road and off-road
 self-powered vehicles that run on wheels or tracks - including automobiles,
 trucks, busses, motorbikes, tanks, golf carts, earth moving equipment, ....
It's a little ugly - but I'm sure someone with actual writing skills could polish it up into something readable. What that does is to dramatically INCREASE the scope of the article to include things we hadn't previously wanted to discuss (like motorbikes, back hoes, golf carts and tanks). Since I strongly desire to slim down the present article and make it more about links to other articles - we should have space to talk about all of these other kinds of Automotive Technology. SteveBaker 14:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand your desire to rule out everything that is not a passenger car from the article, but I still feel that it would me much better to discuss the principles in this article and then move on to discussing passenger cars in detail and direct the users to specific articles on other types of related vehicles (I don't mean motorcycles and golf carts here, those have a pretty separate history and different characteristics).
Now you might find it annoying that I mention that, but the English Wikipedia has become much more than only "Wikipedia in English for UK, US and Aussie people", it is THE Wikipedia. I would guess there might be at least an equal number of people using English everyday in this way or another in countries where English is not an official language than where it is. For example, I would never use the Polish Wikipedia, and most of the people I know in Poland and other countries (who use Wikipedia, and most of the people I know and use the Internet as such do) would use the English Wikipedia in the first place, and when they would say "Wikipedia" they would mean this Wikipedia. Therefore, I believe that in general a quite open-minded and global approach should be adopted, especially when articles are dealing with such general and popular subjects as this one.
Browsing through Wikipedians which are available to me (in terms of lanuage), e.g. Polish, German and French, I found that corresponding articles mostly define the automobile quite broadly. A nice example from the German WP (approximate translation):
OK, it shows that I hate translating from German to English and that I am not really that good at it, but I hope I managed to convey the spirit of the definition (along with the "Teutonic feeling" which I couldn't remove without altering the wording significantly). Based on that (and similar definitions in other languages), as well as the current definition, I would suggest the following wording, so that the article would really be a parallel to other articles in different languages (which are linked to through Interwikilinks):


Gosh, seems like switching between languages hampered my English and lexical skills even further and I've come up with an absolutely horrendous monstrosity. Hoping that you can abstract from the wording and focus on the content, I would suggest a definition of similar meaning, which would clearly point out that the focus of the article would be passenger cars, but that other types of vehicles can also be deemed automobiles. As I said, I see the article giving an in-depth description of passenger cars, but not excluding other types of vehicles that can be seen as automobiles whenever they share important stuff in common (like early history or "how it works?").
Regarding your concerns about the inclusion of golf carts, we might add that "recreational vehicles designed for transport on short distances, such as golf carts or quads are deemed automobiles". As concerns the catch-all term, there is the motor vehicle (which we can, btw, use in the definition), which is much broader than any definition of the automobile I have heard of.
Anyway, we can go back to the definition later on, it is important how it is applied throughout the article. I guess the problem will pop out when editing most sections, and we will have to deal with that then - later we can alter the definition to reflect that. Once again, however, I would like to repeat that many people will come here expecting an article on something more than just a five-or-six seater on four wheels designed primarily to carry people. Bravada, talk - 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
PS1. I just realized some of my wikilinks lead not quite where they should. What-EVER.
PS2. For me the breadth of the term "automotive" is quite understandable - it means almost exactly "self-moving", which is much more than "automobile".

Wikipedia article formatting sucks for these kinds of discussions!  :-) I need to intersperse my answers with your text - so I'll have to duplicate large chunks of it. Your words are in italics...

OK, I understand your desire to rule out everything that is not a passenger car from the article,
No - not at all. I just don't want an article that's entitled "Automobile" to talk about things that aren't automobiles. One way to fix that is to remove all the stuff that's not about cars - but the better way (IMHO) is to change the title so it doesn't say "Automobile". So no - I don't propose to rule out everything that's not about cars - I propose to change the title of the article and keep all of that stuff right where it is right now. The concern is that if we don't rename the article carefully, we'll end up needing to talk about all sorts of other vehicles that don't belong here.
Now you might find it annoying that I mention that, but the English Wikipedia has become much more than only "Wikipedia in English for UK, US and Aussie people", it is THE Wikipedia.
Yes - but that means that those other people who want to read it need to understand English - and telling them that the ENGLISH meaning of Automobile means car is important. We can't take (say) the German meaning of that word because to do so would mean that we had to explain in detail the subtle differences in meaning of every word we use in every possible language. So I really don't give a damn what Automobile means in any other language. The English definition is all that matters here.
The automobile (from Greek άυτο~, áuto~ - self~ and Latin mobilis - moving, earlier also "motor car") is a self-moving vehicle, which is self-propelled by its own means of propulsion, independently of rails and without the usage of animals. This definition would also include motorcycles, but in the common usage the term is used to describe vehicles that leave more tracks (than one). Often a passenger car is meant.}}
Yeah - that's pretty much what this article use to say - but it's wrong' - and I'm correcting it. When we disagree about the meaning of a word, we consult a dictionary. I consulted a dozen dictionaries and they all pretty much agree that this old wording is wrong - and it may well be wrong in the German Wiki too. So forget this 'definition' - it was wrong, it is wrong right now and it'll be wrong next week too.
There are different definitions of the automobile, and the breadth of the term differs between countries and languages.
Doesn't matter - we are writing in English. Only the English definition applies.
I would suggest a definition of similar meaning, which would clearly point out that the focus of the article would be passenger cars, but that other types of vehicles can also be deemed automobiles.
Neither you nor I get to change the meaning of words. It would be convenient if Automobile meant what we wanted it to mean - but it doesn't - bad luck!
As I said, I see the article giving an in-depth description of passenger cars, but not excluding other types of vehicles that can be seen as automobiles whenever they share important stuff in common (like early history or "how it works?").
Right - so I think we need to change the title of the article so it correctly says what the article is actually about.
Regarding your concerns about the inclusion of golf carts, we might add that "recreational vehicles designed for transport on short distances, such as golf carts or quads are deemed automobiles".
But we can't redefine the word to suite our needs! That's horrifying!
As concerns the catch-all term, there is the motor vehicle (which we can, btw, use in the definition), which is much broader than any definition of the automobile I have heard of.
That's a possibility. But the words motor and vehicle might be construed to include railroad locomotives, airplanes and ships - (all of which are definitiely vehicles and certainly have motors). I think I'd prefer to rename the article "Automotive Technology" or something like that.
I would like to repeat that many people will come here expecting an article on something more than just a five-or-six seater on four wheels designed primarily to carry people.
I agree - so we need to change the title so that when they come here they get what they need - but without misleading them as to meaning as we do so. If we rename the article, Automobile can redirect here - so nothing is lost by doing this. SteveBaker 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
PS2. For me the breadth of the term "automotive" is quite understandable - it means almost exactly "self-moving", which is much more than "automobile".
Right. From the half dozen people I've spoken to in person about this, I have yet to meet two people who have the same interpretation of the word Automobile - but everyone pretty much agrees about Automotive.
SteveBaker 18:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ with some of your statements, and I guess you contradicted yourself in a way (the last paragraph is the most significant for me). First of all, the dictionary is where exact meanings of words are established. An encyclopedia is where topics are discussed. While a dictionary has to stick to some strict rules regarding the meaning of words, an encyclopedic article might cross those boundaries. Look around, there are quite many articles that discuss much more (or less) than the dictionary meaning of a word. What is necessary is a good introduction explaining what is being meant by the word in the article and what the scope of the article is. It would also be good to direct people which are looking for things not discussed in the article that can be referred to by the same term to appropriate articles - which is why we have those neat disambig notices.
So, American English says one thing, the vernacular says other. And, regardless of your disdain towards non-native English speakers, "International English" is probably as popular as British or American English. Referring to "automobile" as something else than defined in this or other dictionary (some of the positions from your list I would consider more "reputable" also give slightly different definitions) is not inherently wrong in an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia should give answers on the issues people might refer to by a given word (especially if it is a "popular" encyclopedia like Wikipedia), even if it is lexically wrong.
So, the bottom line is that we do not have to change the title, just discuss (in a better way than I tried to do) which possible meanings of the word "automobile" are the subject of the article, perhaps emphasizing what the correct dictionary definitions of the word in English dictionaries are. Bravada, talk - 18:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
First let me clear up one point - I have absolutely no distain towards non-native English speakers. I am a non-native French speaker after all! But this is an encyclopedia for chrissakes - you have to have standards. Picking dialects of non-native speakers as the standard against which we measure our language is insane! But in any case - I'm very carefully not picking the dialect of any particular group of speakers...I'm using dictionary definitions.
Secondly, I'm advocating renaming the article to more accurately describe what it contains. That won't confuse anyone or make it any harder to find because we'd have a redirect from Automobile to whatever new title we might pick. This is all about the question of "What title would most accurately convey the contents of this article?" - and clearly, "Automobile" is the wrong word to choose if we're going to talk about a lot of other things that are not automobiles. SteveBaker 20:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is that many people would mean many different things by the word "automobile". As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, I believe we need to cover the broader sense of the word, even if some auxilliary meanings will only be marginally featured, or perhaps the readers will be directed to the main articles. I believe that quite many people would be looking for information on the automobile in the broader sense. Even if it is against the American English dictionaries to describe the automobile in the broader sense, I think it is not unencyclopedic to adopt a broader definition for the sake of informing the user. Forgive for not making a detailed search, but I promise to give some examples where good encyclopedic articles here describe something different than what you might find in a dictionary.
What I am trying to say is that an encyclopedia DOES NOT have to follow dictionary definitions, but has to give answers people are looking for. If there are high chances that people would be looking for something under the word "automobile", we have to give it to them. And if a word has a different use in the vernacular (and it seems that it does have many different meanings to everybody) than in the dictionary, a popular encyclopedia like this one should follow the popular use and not the dictionary - perhaps noting which uses are lexically wrong.
Renaming the article to create some artificial construct existing only in this encyclopedia would be the worst thing to do. If anything, I would rather have the non-passenger-car content removed, as an encyclopedia DOES have to have an entry on the automobile. Perhaps to fend off further speculation, the article should be moved to "car", which I believe would be the most universal and popular word used to describe the passenger cars as you defined them above, with "automobile" redirecting to it. This will fend off any doubts about the scope of the article, as nobody would expect the article on "car" to describe buses or trucks. As a sidenote though I have to say that I am surprised that "car" does not contain any links to other (relatively unrelated) meanings of the word - I guess we would need a disambig notice directing to a disambig page at the top (for example for people looking for railway cars). Bravada, talk - 20:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(deindenting) My feeling is we'd be better off making this article about automobiles (i.e. basically just cars) and having an umbrella article (perhaps an expansion of the existing Motor vehicles) that points to Automobile, Truck, Motorcycle etc. One large article covering all these topics will get unwieldy quickly. As an analogy, look at the WikiProjectTrains article on Locomotive which is the "umbrella" article leading to separate articles on Steam Locomotive, Electric Locomotive etc. This seems like a good structure. I like the focus and clarity of keeping this article just about automobiles. What do you think? Gwernol 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my gut feeling tells me that lumping together motorcycles and all kinds of automobiles (let me abstain by the broader definition I am accustomed to) is not a good idea. They don't have THAT much common, whilst the blurry line between cars and trucks (Six-passenger SUV is an automobile, but a seven-passenger isn't? Is Honda Ridgeline an automobile? And how about Dodge Caravan?) would make it hard to make the divide between those two articles.
Besides, motor vehicles technically should encompass golf carts and other interesting stuff we might not want to discuss. So, we might run in trouble here. Bravada, talk - 21:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement. I don't want motorcycles in the same article as cars. I'd like to see Motor Vehicles be a high-level introduction to automobiles, trucks, coaches, motorcycles, golf carts etc. The whole wide world of road vehicles (in fact maybe "Road Vehicles" is what that article should be called). Then the Automobiles article is just about non-commercial passenger carrying vehicles (so includes cars and SUVs). The Truck article is goods vehicles. The coach article is commercial passenger carrying vehicles (everything from mini-busses up). The Motorcycle article is 2-wheel passenger carrying vehicles (maybe some three wheelers too). Maybe Recreational Vehicles is another article which includes golf carts to RVs? Military Vehicles could include tanks and armored cars. The exact boundaries need to be drawn and there will always be some fuzziness. Gwernol 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, what I am trying to say is that some of the so-called motor or road vehicles have a lot in common - cars, trucks, vans, pickups and buses/coaches. I believe that the automobile should be the top-level article for them, and since the automobile is most commonly used to describe cars themselves, the article should focus on the car, and branch out (perhaps that's not the right word, but I hope you'll get my idea) into articles on truck or bus at some point (I'd say coach, understood as long-distance bus, would be a subtype of bus, so the bus article would branch out into that at some point), so that one would not have to go ab ovo, Benz, Daimler, combustion engine works that way, chassis is this thing etc. three times. The motorcycle, as well as military, special and "recreational" vehicles are quite different (can you show me the chassis of a motorcycle?), both in terms of history and technology (I know tanks etc. have chassis, but they are significantly different from car, truck and bus chassis). Bravada, talk - 22:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Still, if the article would NOT deal with trucks and buses at all, I would rather it was titled "Car" to resolve possible ambiguity.

No matter what you call it, I think the article that's used by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics should include commercial cargo-only road vehicles (as well as passenger motor vehicles), just because commerce is important, and all the other transportation core topics (aircraft, ship, train) have an equally important cargo use to them. If it's motor vehicle that covers both cars and large trucks (which, I agree sounds right), then I think that should be the core topic, not this one. (and we should all head over there and get that one up to snuff) --Interiot 09:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Citroën DS

The section on the Citroën DS was completely removed (apart from the picture). It was quite a revolutionary car, designed with the purpose of showcasing all the latest technologies, so it really deserves a place in the article. Maybe at a differnt location, but that's a differnt matter. Any ideas why it was removed? DirkvdM 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above, we are trying to change the article to be more of a portal into other articles than a primary source of information. Whilst it's an interesting car - it's not notable enough to be the only one that gets mentioned in the design section. The DS has it's own article - and we have a separate article on the history of the Automobile. SteveBaker 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
SteveBaker, I do not agree with this concept. It violates WP:NPOV rules which state "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." I think that would be fair representation as as stated just under the POV fork section. "Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced." Thank you, but I am not convinced that the DS should be split from this article let alone even denied from this article. --CyclePat 03:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
OMG, this is insane! How can you push for one car to be specifically included in an article about the automobile in general and say that it's you who is fighting for NPOV?!? Do you want me to list all the other cars I consider revolutionary and push for them to be included? Those can even be more justifiable, as the DS, while unique and pioneering in many ways, did not really change the industry, as not many of its innovations were immediately adopted by other manufacturers, and some even never became popular. It is just a very important car, but this does not merit being described in the "Automobile" article rather than its own!
I mean, Lawrence Olivier was a great actor - do you believe his article should be merged into the actor article therefore? Bravada, talk - 08:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly - well put. SteveBaker 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Assertions

I'm removing the following uncited assertions:

  • In fact, its existence mostly was unknown and Beau de Rochas never built a single engine. [citation needed]
  • There is some evidence, although not conclusive, that Christian Reithmann, an Austrian living in Germany, had built a four-stroke engine by 1873 [citation needed]. Reithmann had been experimenting with internal combustion engines as early as 1852.
  • Supposedly in the late 1870s, an Italian named Murnigotti patented the idea of installing an internal combustion engine on a vehicle, although there is no evidence that one was built. In 1884, Enrico Bernardi, another Italian, installed an internal combustion engine on his son's tricycle. Although merely a toy, it is said to have operated somewhat successfully according one source, but another says the engine's power was too feeble to make the vehicle move. [citation needed]
  • In addition to rising fuel costs, the fact that cars also drive suburban sprawl is forcing people to reassess the actual social and environmental impact of the car [citation needed].
  • are driven by electric motors which are more efficient than internal combustion engines and have a much greater power to weight ratio [citation needed]. They also
  • efficiently across the full speed range of the vehicle and develop a lot of torque at zero speed, so are ideal for cars [citation needed]. A
  • Hypothetical driverless cars and flying cars have been proposed for decades [citation needed], but for now the costs outweigh the benefits (traffic overhaul and control, fuel and operating costs, the development of widely available driverless and flying cars itself, and the technology required for such vehicles which is currently out of reach [citation needed]).

Fact check 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern production process

This article has little to no information about the modern car production process, and a fair amount on the historical production process. As the comment below suggests, along with this section, the article currently has something of a split personality. I may start an article on the automotive production process and supply chain...unless they already exist and I'm missing them. Antonrojo 16:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above) Dammit, I forgot about the automobile industry (broadly understood, i.e. including suppliers, cooperants and companies down the value chain, like dealers or fleet operators) and some notes on the production processes - these could be discussed within economics or perhaps in their own section, similar in size to history and economics. It might be hard to make the divide between industry, economics, technology and history though... Bravada, talk - 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

We seem to be getting a heck of a lot of vandalism here recently. I wonder if it's worth requesting semi-protected status for the article? That's worked out really well for articles like Computer which used to be heavily attacked. SteveBaker 21:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems quite surprising to me (to see all that vandalism), but I would support it. I guess the time the article is appearing vandalised this way or another is currently equivalent to the time it appears as it should. Bravada, talk - 01:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK - I just filed a request for semi-protection. SteveBaker 13:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we're now semi-protected. That should cut down on the vandalism. The tricky part is deciding when (if ever) to un-semi-protect. But for now, the peace and quiet is worth having. SteveBaker 02:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Great to hear that, thanks! I would argue there's no reason to ever unprotect the page, as there is no indication the vandalism was tied to any specific period in time. But do we really have to have this awful template? To me it looks like "something is very wrong with this article" immediately - after people will read it they will find out what it is about, but the impression remains. Bravada, talk - 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There's still some vandalism, about halfway down under "Production statistics". Anonymous, 02:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah! Actually, the vandalism was in Template:World Motor Vehicle Production by Country, not this article. That's kinda nasty! I didn't have that template on my watchlist - so the vandalism sneaked under the radar. Those who watch this page need to add the templates it uses to their watchlists too! SteveBaker 13:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be more vandalism in the "Top 15 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Companies by Volume 2005" chart. Something about "General Motors must make many metal machines to make money". It looks like it should be a link to General Motors, but I can't fix it. - Anonymous

Wiki-strike anyone?

I'm not happy.

I've analysed the last 1000 or so edits to this page...again.

Did the 19 days of semi-protection we had last month "cure" any of the vandals as the Wikipedia authorities claim? Well, no. Not in the least. The levels of vandalism after semi-protection are about the same as they were before semiprotection was tried. So a short period (19 days) of semi-protection does nothing to deter vandalism...not a thing. This means we should either not use it at all in these kinds of situation - or it should be permenant (for the kinds of articles for which it's needed). I strongly advocate the latter because it works.

During the blissful 19 day period when Automobile had semi-protection, we were never once vandalised - we had 13 valid edits and no reversions whatever. During the subsequent 19 day period of zero protection, we were vandalised 121 times (always by anonymous users) with the page being screwed up for a total of 47 hours and 20 minutes. There were 102 separate reverts (17 by 'AntiVandalBot' and 85 done manually by logged in users) to correct these problems. This was not one single vandal but approximately 87 distinct IP addresses - all from different domains with no vandal being responsible for more than 5 of the attacks. During the same period, we had 18 valid edits - all by logged in users and no contributions of any kind (other than vandalism) from non-logged in users. The average time to perform a revert (on a high speed Internet connection) is 3 minutes (including pulling up the history, noticing a likely attack, examining the 'diff', clicking on the older article, hitting edit, adding a reason and hitting 'Save' - if you bother to go to the vandal's 'Talk' page and leave a vandalism complaint, it takes more like 4 or 5 minutes - but let's go with 3 minutes for the sake of statistics) - so the 87 reverts cost our editors a minimum of 4 hours and 20 minutes of their time. Interestingly, 87% of the vandalism happens between the hours of 7am and 7pm (US central time).

What can we conclude from this?

  • Obviously this article gains zero benefit from not-logged-in users. They contributed nothing over those 19 days when they had the opportunity (nor in the 19 days prior to the article being semi-protected). The argument that "much of Wikipedia content comes from these users" is quite obviously untrue for this kind of article...you can't even argue that "some" content comes that way. The answer is none.
  • The costs of allowing not-logged-in users to edit is:
    1. For 47 hours out of the last 19 days, people coming to read about automobiles were presented with lies, disinformation, spam and obscene language (a cursory search reveals mostly the latter). To put it another way, if you visit Automobile at random times throughout the day you have a 10% chance of seeing crap. It's actually much worse than that in practice because of the preponderance of vandalism during US daylight hours - which means that if you are a US Wikipedia reader, you have more like a 20% chance of seeing a vandalised article.
    2. We wasted 4 hours and 21 minutes manually fixing the vandalism. This was time during which this article could have been improved - and you can do a LOT of improvements if you work on an article for that amount of time!

I'm going to go back to whatever level of Wikipedia red tape decides on this stuff and demand PERMENANT semi-protection status for this page. But I want to go further. I want the people who contribute to this page (and who revert vandalism) to make a commitment. I want a strike!! I propose that if we do not get the permenant semi-protection that this page deserves that we refuse to work on it anymore...let the vandals have their way. I don't see why we should all waste our valuable time reverting this article for no good reason whatever when a perfectly workable solution exists.

This would be a different matter if this were some politically charged page where some kind of anonymity was valuable - or a very raw, new page that would require a lot of editing (potentially from non-logged in users) - or a sufficiently obscure article that the vandals would rarely think to look there - but it's none of those things. Remember - over the last several weeks, we got not even one useful contribution from an anonymous user so the price of permenant semi-protection is zero.

If you would agree to participate in a no reverts strike, please indicate below. Thanks SteveBaker 17:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I get very frustrated by editors, and especially administrators, who stick like glue to their own interpretation of the rules without considering the weight of feeling from the editors who actually contribute to a given article in a given situation. (My experience has been that the majority of administrators – though by no means all – are somewhat less open-minded than I consider appropriate for people in their position.) I didn't follow the debate on this particular partial-protection, but I agree with Steve's points, and so if there is any resistance to further protection, I for one would be prepared to sign up to a "no reverts" protest, for a limited period, to help to make the point. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Unconvinced by the idea of industrial action in a co-operative - but I certainly support permanent semi-protection. - Ian Dalziel 19:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I've moved the paragraph on etymology to here for discussion.

The term automobile is derived from Greek auto- ("self") and Latin mobilis ("movable"), referring to the fact that it "moves by itself". Earlier terms for automobile include motorwagon (from the German name "Motorwagen",) and horseless carriage. Although the term "car" is presumed to be derived through the shortening of the term "carriage", the word has its origin before 1300 A.D. in English as, "carr"—derived from similar words in French and much earlier Greek words—for a vehicle that moves, especially on wheels, that was applied to chariots, small carts, and later—to carriages that carried more people and larger loads. Note, therefore, that carriage and chariot come from the same root as car, which in a sense predates them.

This, I think, is too much detail, and too much of a distraction, at the start of the article. The reader wants to be told about automobiles, not the history of the word, and the article is already very long. If it is deemed desirable, put a link to wiktionary, or if that isn't detailed enough, perhaps write a new article on it. -- de Facto (talk). 09:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree - we should move it down a ways, get the important stuff said first - but I think we need the etymology here someplace. SteveBaker 13:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is an important part of the article and of course should be included, but summary is not the place for that. The article's summary is currently pretty hopeless, as it is no summary at all, given the length and breadth of the article. But leaving that aside, I believe the paragraph on etymology etc. would be a nice opening to the history of the automobile. Bravada, talk - 14:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Chinese industry

are there articles about Chinese automobile production and Chinese brands please? Shame On You 02:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

found this, Category:Cars of China, is there anything else? Shame On You 02:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RFPP for Automobile

From WP:RFPP

Permenant Semi-protection - This page has been granted short-term semi-protection at least once before - but after a period of 19 days, the protection was removed. I come back to this forum to request permenant semi-protection. Since I know that this will not be lightly granted, I come prepared with a carefully researched argument backed by statistics created from the last 1000 edits to the page over the last 19 days of zero-protection compared to the preceeding 19 days of semi-protection. Please do not bother to grant short-term semi-protection because that is of little or no benefit.

Data:

Did the 19 days of semi-protection we had last month "cure" any of the vandals to Automobile? Well, no. Not in the least. The levels of vandalism after semi-protection are about the same as they were before semiprotection was tried. So a short period (19 days) of semi-protection does nothing to deter vandalism...not a thing. This means we should either not use it at all in these kinds of situation - or it should be permenant (for the kinds of articles for which it's needed). I strongly advocate the latter because it works.

During the blissful 19 day period when Automobile had semi-protection, we were never once vandalised - we had 13 valid edits and no reversions whatever. During the subsequent 19 day period of zero protection, we were vandalised 121 times (always by anonymous users) with the page being screwed up for a total of 47 hours and 20 minutes. There were 102 separate reverts (17 by 'AntiVandalBot' and 85 done manually by logged in users) to correct these problems. This was not one single vandal but approximately 87 distinct IP addresses - all from different domains with no vandal being responsible for more than 5 of the attacks. During the same period, we had 18 valid edits - all by logged in users and no contributions of any kind (other than vandalism) from non-logged in users. The average time to perform a revert (on a high speed Internet connection) is 3 minutes (including pulling up the history, noticing a likely attack, examining the 'diff', clicking on the older article, hitting edit, adding a reason and hitting 'Save' - if you bother to go to the vandal's 'Talk' page and leave a vandalism complaint, it takes more like 4 or 5 minutes - but let's go with 3 minutes for the sake of statistics) - so the 87 reverts cost our editors a minimum of 4 hours and 20 minutes of their time. Interestingly, 87% of the vandalism happens between the hours of 7am and 7pm (US central time).

Conclusions What can we conclude from this?

  • Obviously this article gains zero benefit from not-logged-in users. They contributed nothing over those 19 days when they had the opportunity (nor in the 19 days prior to the article being semi-protected). The argument that "much of Wikipedia content comes from these users" is quite obviously untrue for this kind of article...you can't even argue that "some" content comes that way. The answer is none.
  • The costs of allowing not-logged-in users to edit is:
    1. For 47 hours out of the last 19 days, people coming to read about automobiles were presented with lies, disinformation, spam and obscene language (a cursory search reveals mostly the latter). To put it another way, if you visit Automobile at random times throughout the day you have a 10% chance of seeing crap. It's actually much worse than that in practice because of the preponderance of vandalism during US daylight hours - which means that if you are a US Wikipedia reader, you have more like a 20% chance of seeing a vandalised article.
    2. We wasted 4 hours and 21 minutes manually fixing the vandalism. This was time during which this article could have been improved - and you can do a LOT of improvements if you work on an article for that amount of time!

Many thanks for your time SteveBaker 21:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. You bring up some good points, but I don't know if any future admins will see the points you had brought up. In any case, I'm posting your evidence on the article talk page. Nishkid64 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! This will make a big difference. SteveBaker 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I see the protection notice has been removed by by User:Dorfd1. Does this mean that the protection has gone or just the notice? Dorfd1's user page is just mangled code so I haven't left a query there. Malcolma 09:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I left a note on Nishkid64s talk page asking for clarification. I suspect that the sprotect template is just decorative - the actual protection must be flagged elsewhere. On my own MediaWiki on my website (where I have admin status) I can sprotect pages without using any kind of template or other visible notification - it's probably the same here. SteveBaker 15:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually - I just realised - I can test this. I logged out and brought up Automobile - the 'edit' tab is still not there and there is a 'view source' tab instead. So I guess the sprotect widget is just decorative/informative and we should be able to simply revert Dorfdl's edit - which I'll do now. SteveBaker 15:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
That's right. We get nonsense all the time in the Kosova article, and it came up once that yes, it's just an informative template, not an automatic part of the protection. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nishkid64 has decided (for seemingly no good reason) to un-semi-protect the article again. Why? Autowikipedians - please join me in complaining on User talk:Nishkid64 so we can get this fixed quickly. SteveBaker 15:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't keep articles locked up forever. It was a test to see what would happen. Apparently, it failed. Page restoration has been brought back. Nishkid64 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting back the semi-protection. But why not keep this kind of article locked up forever? It's not like we're losing a bunch of great edits from anonymous users. I don't think I've ever seen a worthwhile anonymous edit to this article. Locking anonymous edits out forever is precisely what's needed here. Every time semi-protection is removed, we'll be exactly back to where we were before we had protection. Nothing in the world is changing the number of random idiots who type "Car" into the search box then type in crap to see what'll happen. What do you think might change over a three week period of protection to change that? These problems are NOT caused by one or two habitual vandals of this page whom we might discourage with temporary protection - these are just random passers . SteveBaker 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ehh...you can't lock any article forever (unless it's a super high risk, such as the Main Page or ITN). You can have long-term semi-protection, but that's about it. But this is one of those articles that has always been hit bad, so it will probably be semi-protected for a long time. Nishkid64 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The protection has been taken off and the vandals are back. Malcolma 16:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This really annoys me. The reasons protection was applied still apply. Why shouldn't it be protected indefinitely? I'm sick of writing to admins about this - it makes no sense whatever to unprotect the article after a month and make us continually have to go back and re-request the same thing for the same reasons every time. SteveBaker 18:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a stand.

This page was blanked by vandals for almost 30 minutes today. This is completely unacceptable for an article of this importance. We have to do something about this. I can't tolerate admins continually un-protecting the page and causing us all to waste our valuable time reverting vandalism rather than creating content. We've shown twice now that temporary sprotect doesn't prevent unacceptable levels of vandalism once the article is unprotected. I've analysed the editing patterns and shown conclusively that we lose nothing by sprotecting because unregistered editors provide a negligable contribution here and very nearly 100% of vandalism is by unregistered users.

I'm taking a moral stand.

From this point on - I refuse to fix vandalism to this article unless it is semi-protected. It's a waste of my time. I invite others to support this view. If those who oppose permenant semi-protection won't recognise our needs as contributors - let them fix the vandalism because I'm not going to. SteveBaker 01:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One of us from Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles could always stand for adminship, and then at least there would be somebody kinda "on hand" and willing to re-protect as necessary! It'd be a less frequent chore than reverting vandalism currently is. – Kieran T (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I suggest include a picture of a car with arrows to its part names --Mac 11:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea - do you have such a picture (copyright-free of course) - or do you plan to make one specially? SteveBaker 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this article does not contain a single image of a typical modern automobile. Acdx 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Car" is actually an old celtic word

  • Car is derived from the celtic word "carrus," (meaning cart or wagon).
  • The derivation of a modern word from such an ancient source is both interesting and a descent hook/ segway to an exploration of the history of this phenomenon that began with the idea of building a better wagon.

Just a suggestion. -Mak 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Motorcar ?!?

I've now twice reverted edits by Parable1991 (talk · contribs), wherein they have removed the space from motor car to make it motorcar. I don't believe that there is any etymology to support this term. Anyone? --Athol Mullen 01:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Motorcar is not in my dictionary. Motor car is along with motor-car. Malcolma 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Scroll back up to the section "An Automobile is a Car - it's official!" - you'll see that quite a few of the dozen or so dictionaries that I quoted use 'motorcar' and quite a few others use 'motor car' or 'motor-car' - so I think both may be considered good English. However, even though both usages are alright, I think it's rude of Parable1991 to repeatedly change something that's already OK. SteveBaker 11:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Car Safety

In the Car Safety section it claims:

  • Systematic research on crash safety started in 1958 at Ford Motor Company

This gives the impression that Ford was a leader in Car Safety research in the 50's, but in the main Automobile safety page it states:

  • In the 1950´s, Mercedes-Benz made the first crash tests

While in the Volvo and Volvo Cars pages we can see safety features researched and first implemented by Volvo (not all dates in those pages agree):

  • 1944 Safety cage
  • 1944 Laminated windscreen
  • 1959 Three-point safety belts in the front (availible as accessory in 1957?)
  • 1960 Padded dashboard (available in Volvo Amazon 1956?)

Is there any real evidence that Ford were leaders in crash safety research in the 1950s? Can we list any models where the results of this research was used, or significant Ford safety inventions in that period?

Otherwise we should remove the statement or amend to show Volvo and Mercedes as leaders in crash safety (research and application?) during that period. --Xagent86 23:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Car/Archive_2&oldid=1159092953"