|WikiProject Automobiles||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 US rollover standard of the late 1970s
- 2 Jeep Wrangler
- 3 Cabriolet (carriage)
- 4 Miata MX5
- 5 images should be spread throughout article
- 6 Merging roadster et al
- 7 Do we REALLY need a gallery?
- 8 Category:Car body styles vs. Category:Convertibles
- 9 Ragtop
- 10 Pros and Cons
- 11 List of coupe convertibles
- 12 Premise - inverted?
- 13 Etymology
US rollover standard of the late 1970s
I mistakenly added some bogus information about a government ban on convertibles in the 1970s. While searching for a better source than what I'd already found, I discovered that the government threatened a more stringent rollover requirement, but never followed through with it. However, this is likely to have made the auto manufacturers shy away from designing convertibles.
I'm going to add back in information to that effect. If someone disagrees, please edit and comment. --- Bitt 04:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that this kind of government restriction would have caused problems. After all, nowadays convertibles have that kind of protection and it hasn't put any significant problems in the way of manufacturers. From all I've read, the problems in the '70s were simply one of trendiness. The public didn't want 'em - so the manufacturers didn't build 'em. SteveBaker 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
While the Jeep Wrangler can be considered a convertible, to me it seems that the Jeep YJ (pre-1996) models fit the role as a targa top and convertible, since they can be used as seemingly either. However, I don't know whether or not the Jeep could be considered a true "convertible", as many early trucks (i.e. the Ford Bronco, Chevrolet Blazer, etc.) used a similar system - a hardtop that could be removed and then equipped with a soft top. Zchris87v 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Pontiac Solstice Coupe (briefly produced before Pontiac's shutdown) used a similar system. It's probably a better example for the article since it is a true convertible from the ground up. 220.127.116.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
a new article entitled Cabriolet (carriage) has been created from the section Cabriolet, but I have not deleted the section from here. Cabriolet almost always refers to the car and not the carriage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC
- Is good. I have now deleted the cabriolet section and changed the redirection of "cabriolet" to "cabriolet (carriage)". I hope there are no other loose ends in this change.Fbarw (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is full of uses of the Mazda Miata, could a different example be used to replace it as the Miata name is only used in North America and the majority of markets seem to use the MX5 name plate. Surely a car sold in both the US and UK/ROI under the same name must exist. As the Article for the car in question is Mazda MX5 it would make more sence to use that name if the car is to be kept.(Morcus (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC))
images should be spread throughout article
Merging roadster et al
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Merging roadster et al for a centralised discussion around merging all the roadster-related articles. Zunaid©® 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we REALLY need a gallery?
In almost all these "car body styles" articles there seems to be a fascination with dumping a large gallery of examples at the end of the articles. Wikipedia is not Flickr; the photos of those cars belong in articles on those cars only. Only a few well chosen examples should be used to illustrate the history and development of the convertible, alongside the text describing such development. I have a mind to remove the gallery in its entirety and only use those that are relevant to THIS article. The rest is just noise. Comments? Zunaid 16:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting opinions. Your bias is clear: "Do we REALLY (allcaps) "need" a gallery", "fascination with dumping," "Wikipedia is not Flickr (sic)." Why not try to make your case with less biased language? You, after all, are the editor who insisted on "dumping" the Retractable Hardtop article into the Convertible article. What problem is it that these two galleries pose to the reader?
- On the other hand, it's not like the images within the galleries are irrelevant to the discussion. Assuming someone is using the article as a reference, the galleries in this are discreetly captioned to give specific information to help ILLUSTRATE the specifics within the article, to help the reader understand the variety of iterations in manufacture, material, and international availability with regard to both convertibles and retractables. I preferred the images when they ran vertically aside the article (like here); they were more integral to the text.
- Exactly my point, instead of a gallery, it would serve better to have the pictures running next to the relevant paragraph which explains its significance. I still think that the sheer number of pictures in the galleries is not justified, there is not much to write about beyond the one-sentence captions in each of those images. In any case some of those images do not illustrate what the caption is actually saying, i.e. showing a shot of the entire car while the caption explains the type of attachment or hinging mechanism, or the speed of the roof. As for my bias, it is simply towards writing articles that read better, which means more emphasis on a flowing prose structure. This means trying to reduce the use of lists and galleries where they can be better incorporated into the text of the article itself. Also, the merge of all the "convertible" articles was discussed at Wikiproject Automobiles and it was decided that Convertible was the best over-arching article for all of them (besides Roadster, which was deemed to be a separate category of vehicle). Thus this article is in its current draft state, having just had the info dumped over yesterday. It still needs to be re-written. Zunaid 11:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I got to this page because I came looking for the word "ragtop" (I'm not a native speaker). Now "Ragtop" redirects to "Convertible", but nowhere it says whether it refers to just the roof of the car or the entire car, or where the word comes from, in fact it doesn't mention the word "ragtop" anywhere in the page when I did a ctrl-F. Perhaps someone who is familiar to this kind of thing can write a little paragraph on the word? Even if just to mention "A Convertible car is sometimes also called a ragtop" or "The roof of a Convertible car is sometimes also called .." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
How to Talk Car, by John Lawlor (1965, Topaz-Felsen Books,Chicago), is a dictionary of automotive terms, including slang. It defines "ragtop" as "convertible," but provides no origin or history of the term. "The rag trade" is slang for the garment manufacturing business. Perhaps "ragtop" is an analogy to that.Whytk (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Pros and Cons
The "Pros and cons" section is entirely "cons" outside of a reference to flexibility. This section should either be renamed or edited to more reflect the title. Dephconn (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
List of coupe convertibles
Would it be worth splitting the list of coupe convertibles out into a seperate list page? I actually started creating such a page before realising the list was further down in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coup%C3%A9_convertibles Md84419 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- My opinion? Such a list is not needed in WP at all, even in this article itself. It just accumulates cruft. It would be like having a list of sedans or list of cars in the first place. For more input please post this same question to WT:CARS, there is a bigger WP community of car article editors that can give input. Zunaid 12:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Premise - inverted?
As an owner of such, I question the premise of the definition, and invite everyone to consider its alternative: "A convertible...[is] a type of automobile ... that can 'convert' from an open-air vehicle to an enclosed one." That is certainly the way I use mine. A car like my own 2002 Ford Mustang is primarily an open-air roadster; I can put up a provisional roof when I have to, e.g. when it rains (rarely in Arizona, and then it is usually inside the garage) or when I run it through a car wash. The presumption needs to be considered more fully. Can we take a poll? Scopk01 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)firstname.lastname@example.org
this is probably not the right place to ask, but ... I came here from cabinet making pages, where "cabriole" refers to a type of furniture leg. How did a leaping goat end up a car roof?
I reckon that's easy. Look at the shape of the lump of steel on the outside of this car's fabric roof. It crosses the gap from crag to crag. What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thx for answering. It seems that the root of "cabr-" is the latin word for "goat", and that "cabrioler" is the verb describing how goats bounce around hillsides ... hence, the convex/concave "rococco foot" on furniture ("cabriole") refers to a goat's hind leg. I guess the (secondary?) connotation of springyness makes the word useful to describe something bounces along (more or less) gently, like the light two-wheeled chaise. IIRC there is a word for a term that has been imported via two different source languages, but for the life of me ... Polysemy? T 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)