Talk:Car

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

fuck your mum What is the thing called in the interior of the car, above both the passenger and driver seats that usually has a mirror and helps block sunlight? I keep trying to remember the name of this thing but I do not have a car manual with me and I can't find the name anywhere on the Internet because car diagrams only showing the major parts. It is driving me crazy. Sammasa 13:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A sun visor? Hmmmm - the link on this page points at Sun visor - which is a redirect to Visor - which is a disambig page - which says that the part of an automobile is called a Sun visor - which is a link back to...

Quick! Someone write an article about Sun visors! SteveBaker 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

130.166.31.98 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This page has been subjected to abuse with the word "poo" I could not edit as it is protected.

I made something in it, at least... Andrewrhchen 14:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Citroen car caption says "The 1955 Citroën DS; revolutionary visual design and technological innovation." while the image description (click on the picture) says "A 1975 Citroën D Super DS FD photographed by myself at Prins Bertil Memorial in Stockholm, Sweden."

fuck your mum

im bored I've been looking at the article quality metrics for project Automobile - and this article is an embarrasment. It's the most important article in the entire project - and it's been rated has "Top" priority in the overall Wikipedia importance ratings - yet it's only "B-grade". This is not good. I've done a bit of cleanup - but the amount of work to be done is horrifying.

IMHO, we need to do the following:

1. Y Done Dramatically shorten the history section. This is a top level article, it should merely sketch out the history in a few paragraphs and punt the bulk of the discussion to a more detailed article - as we do in other sections.
2. References...jeez...this is a top importance article and it has a grand total of four references...that's AWFUL! We all need to look on our bookshelves and look at what facts in the article can be backed up by information in books that we collectively own. Or we have to look at our daughter articles and see what books they quote to back up those same facts. I'm sure that if everyone spent a half hour doing that, we'd have a decently referenced article in no time.
3. Y Done Years are linked...bad.
4. Y Done Units are not linked and don't have non-breaking spaces...bad.
5. General attention to spelling and grammar is poor.
6. Y Done Photos are disorganised - some are not needed.
7. Introduction needs to be bulked out to three or four good sized paragraphs.
8. We need more sections in the big table of links covering things like car magazines, legal matters, clubs, technical qualifications, jobs in the automotive industry.

We should be able to at least get this article through WP:GAC - the present situation is discraceful.

SteveBaker 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a big rewrite of the Fuel and Propulsion section. It still needs more references but I will have a dig around.

Malcolma 12:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I also add a suggestion (though I won't be bold and just do it without at least one voice in support)? The "See also" section seems to just be a monstrously bloated tabulation of the various automobile categories, and could be almost completely removed. Just pipe links to the three or four major sub-categories, maybe? I'll try and have a closer look tomorrow as well if I have time. --DeLarge 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I spent a lot of effort to create those tables because I feel strongly that they are needed. There is a precedent for this approach since many of the 'top level' articles in Wikipedia work that way. See for example Physics or Computer or Geography or Psychology or Philosophy - each of these has large lists of links either at the end or scattered in big blocks throughout the article. This article should serve primarily as a navigation aid because nobody really wants to know all about everything about cars - and there simply isn't room in one article to say it all anyway. Our readers will have come here to answer some question because they didn't know where to look. Simply pointing them at category listings (which are not as well organised as the big tables of links here) doesn't come anywhere close to getting people where they need to be. It's been my experience that nobody in the "real world" has any clue about the category links at the bottom of the article - and in any case, they are always cluttered with junk and hard to navigate. SteveBaker 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

<indent reset> Well, I disagree about the Categories, since I've used them myself almost since day one -- they seemed very straightforward to me, auto-alphabetised and much more intuitive than most "See also" lists. I can only go by my own experiences on that.

Also, of the articles you mentioned, Physics splits its tables over two sections and puts prose in between, which helps slightly, and Computer had a good deal of hostility to the tables during its peer review. Neither of the other three has its links laid out in huge tables, and looking at other similar "overview" articles they don't have them either; I see no demonstration of "precedence" for the current layout. I've been here for a year or so, but as soon as I saw those tables I just glazed over and scrolled past them; I imagine many casual readers would do the same.

If you're going to insist on keeping them, I'd suggest culling or reorganising them a bit; in Articles relating to parts of automobiles the Car Engine/Other cell has seven rows of text at 1024x768, and many others have five or six. That's a lot to take in. Also, how about splitting the tables further so you have 4-5 smaller ones instead of two large ones, and follow the lead of Law, which hides its tables (OK, navigation templates) and lets the user pick the one(s) he needs? --DeLarge 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There may be no good precedent for this layout - but plenty of articles have honking great navigational templates in the "See also" section. I find them very useful - they are better than categories because they don't get cluttered with poorly categorized stubs - we can control which set of articles covers the subject - and we can conveniently divide the set of links by sub-subject. I'm happy to discuss slimming down the number of articles - and I'm happy to discuss changing the look and layout - but categories really don't do it for me - I use this table all the time! SteveBaker 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This page perhaps deseves a "wikify" tag? it is just ugly, improperly formatted, and just seems like a page this major deserves better!user:mceliececm

Largest automobile

Like the subject says, what is the largest automobile ever built? I think this deserves mention in the same way as the Spruce Goose is famous for being one of the largest airplanes ever built.172.168.37.167 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See List of automotive superlatives - the trouble with adding that stuff here is the "where do you stop?" question. If we are putting the largest - then someone will want the smallest, then the fastest, the most fuel efficient...and before you know it, you have that list article inside the automobile article. I think we should 'See Also' that article and leave it at that. This article is supposed to give the briefest of overviews - then punt you off to more detailed articles. SteveBaker 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reading section

Is all of that stuff in further reading neccessary? Sure they are automobile related and probably useful in that regard, but I think we should remove the column on the right and just have the primary topics. For example instead of having "Car body style" and then all the styles, we should just have a link to that. It would cut down the section and make it more readable. This is a top level article, it just doesn't need all the specific components of a car engine listed (Hypereutectic piston). James086^Talk 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

.

Greatest Source of Death?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate lists it down at 2% whereas the article currently quotes it at 25%

Two percent of all deaths, 25 percent of injury-related deaths in group E.1 (i.e. if you get cancer or have a stroke, you're not being "injured"). --DeLarge 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add the following websites to this article: 469 reasons to eliminate automobiles (http://www.carsstink.org/), adding that we should build massive 100-story live/work/play Tower cities connected to/by maglev Trains in the future; The GM Street Car Conspiracy which forced all people to need a car (http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm); Maglev Trains of the future connected to Tower cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train); Car Crash photos http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/car_accident_photo.html. "Why Reduce Automobile Dependence" http://www.priorities.org/carfree.htm. Car Free Cities of the Future http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/carfree_city_us_1.php. Sundiiiiii 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia articles are not: propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." --DeLarge 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Changes to Section "Economics and Impacts"

I expanded on the section "Economics and Social Impact" and changed the name to "Economics and Impacts". The name change is because "social impacts" are now represented by named subsections on environmental costs and impact on public health. Economic costs are now broken into multiple subsections as well.

Questions for the group:

1. are there other kinds of "social impacts" that should be included here?
2. the last subsection, called "alternatives", is an expansion of content that was already in this section. Should alternatives be broken out of the "Economics and Impacts" section and turned into a level 2 heading?

I've tried to keep each of these very concise, but let me know if you think I've missed anything or included things that don't belong.Pladuk 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one. I deleted

"In the united States, the number of fatalities per year is around 42 thousand."

as U.S.-biased; if anybody has stats for other nations (2 or 3, even), to add some perspective, I'd say put them all in. If possible, I'd suggest a contrast in driving styles or road building: U.S., Germany, Italy, Japan, say. Trekphiler 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Car Facts?

I deleted "by modifying the Carnot Cycle." Carnot never built an engine; his Cycle describes the ideal cycle for a heat engine (including steam, diesel, Otto, Rankine, or Stirling). I also deleted

"Joseph Cugnot, who crashed his steam-powered "Fardier" against a wall in 1771, "

since it's disputed Cugnot's vehicle ever ran. Also, the article says "11,450 lbs of carbon dioxide"; over how long? I added

"Its disadvantages include poor heat efficiency and extensive requirements for electric auxiliaries."

and

"This makes clear the often-ignored fact road design and traffic control also play a part in car wrecks; unclear traffic signs, inadequate signal light placing, and poor planning (curved bridge approaches which become icy in winter, for example), also contribute."

The last is something I'm unsure really belongs here, but there was an implication all car wrecks can & should be blamed on driver error or bad car design, which is clearly untrue. Trekphiler 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

POV in "Economics and Impacts" section

This section is not neutral in its presentation of either the economics or the impacts of the automobile, and thus contravenes the WP:NPOV policy.

A POV neutral presentation would include:

• Not only the economic costs, but the value of the offsetting benefits too.
• Not only the negative impacts, but must include all the positive impacts too.

Should we delete this section until a neutral version appears? -- de Facto (talk). 09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It' usually easier to construct a neutral version from a non-neutral one than from nothing at all. As long as the section is tagged as non-neutral (which it is) I think it's fine to leave up unbalanced content until it can be fixed. -- Beland 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the single sentence section about Toyota, which has been added to several different articles by User:Altermike, initially in a highly POV fashion.

First, let me quote the opening paragraph of the reference (originally at Reuters; the autonews.com citation is a subscriber-only regurgitation): "Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. outsold General Motors Corp. by around 90,000 vehicles in the first quarter, moving a step closer to unseating its U.S. rival as the world's biggest automaker." Clearly, the text I've bolded indicates that to represent Toyota as "the world's largest manufacturer" without caveats would not be accurate. That claim is afforded based on annual production, and based on 2006 GM stays on top (just). The 2007 figures should certainly put Toyota on top barring a fairly astonishing recovery from GM, but until the year's over, let's not indulge in crystal balling.

Second, I culled the note entirely because single sentence sections are strongly deprecated. We've covered this news at Automobile production statistics and Toyota, and that's more than sufficient. --DeLarge 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is not neutral because it doesn´t cover the economics of the car, specially in a changing world. There are statistics in the market, there are tendences in the market and all this has been DELETED from this article, there is no minimal reference here. So, the article is NOT NEUTRAL. I don´t know what people has elected with their free right to choose. And the impact of carbon-free legislation. As said, this article live in the past, not in the present--Altermike 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AM. Suggest some positive benefits if you will. I can think of the the people employed to produce the energy, steel, aluminum, plastics, leather, fuel, oils, and so on to support the automobile. There may be other cited sources for this type of information. Would you mention them please? William (Bill) Bean 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We would create an automotive market section and full article, with consumer preferences. --Nopetro 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The current limitations of this section are almost shocking. The Car is, without doubt, one of the major polluters in the world today. (Live somewhere where there are none, you will see the difference). The effects of meeting the demands for oil (wars etc..) are phenomenal. Cars bring both great benefits (mobility etc..) and also great ills to the modern world. Such is their impact that - if no separate article already exists - that it warrants a separate article. Marcus22 13:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Section 5.3 as it currently stands is accurate and massively documented. Could be more complete but certainly should not be left out of this assessment. ericbritton 08:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Can anyone explain the difference between "make" and "model"? To clarify my question, I will use the Honda Civic DX Sedan 2007 as an example. Does "make" refer to the vendor (e.g. Honda) or to the trademark class (e.g. Civic)? Does "model" refer to the trademark class (e.g. Civic), to its version (e.g 2007), to its subclass (e.g. DX, LX, etc.), or to it general category (e.g. Sedan)? Thanks. I think this article should include a more comprehensive section on automobile terminology. Michael Safyan 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Make: Maker. Model: Car_model. I agree with the proposed idea about terminology. --Nopetro 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Make is the manufacturer name. Such as Nissan, Citroen, Ford, Hyundai, and so on. Model is the specific version such as Sentra, 2CV, Focus, Tiburon and so on. Subclass becomes part of the model name; at least here in the U.S. William (Bill) Bean 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per example above, Make = Honda, Model = Civic, and Trim = DX Sedan Editors of Kelley Blue Book 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Make is a U.S. usage. Brits use "marque". "Subclass"? Trim level. Trekphiler 16:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually here in the UK we don't use 'marque' we use 'make' also Rmg12 (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that 'marque' is a British term it's more that the term 'marque' is used to describe 'makes' with class and heritage. Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, Alfa-Romeo are 'marques', Hyundai and Toyota are 'makes'. It's a very loaded subjective POV difference though so I wouldn't suggest using the term 'marque' on Wikipedia as a differentiator. It would just be an invitation to a fanboy edit war. Dino246 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethanol as an alternative source of fuel

I've noticed that there is no reference to ethanol in the fuel list. Anyone volunteers to write about it?

We have LOTS of articles about that (arguably - too many!): Ethanol fuel, Common ethanol fuel mixtures, Alcohol fuel, Cellulosic ethanol, Biomass, Biofuel, Biogas, Butanol fuel (OK - not quite), Ethanol fuel in Brazil (where it's principally used), Ethanol fuel in the United States, Ethanol fuel in Sweden, Ethanol fuel in Australia, Flexible-fuel vehicle, Gasoline-equivalent gallon, Cellulosic ethanol commercialization...I don't think we need more articles on this subject! SteveBaker 14:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Car Template/Cost

This hit me when I was looking up cars on Wikipedia: the car templates have no price ranges on them. I think this is a big hole that somebody missed and we should add the car prices to all the templates. I'm willing to help the guys on WikiProject: Cars with this if everybody agrees with me. WikiTaco 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

--207.235.202.100 15:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)fasdfmsdmfasthis is not really true ===Esperanto?=== Is anybody else getting "In other languages" at both top & bottom of page? Trekphiler 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Further reading section

I converted the tables in the further reading section to templates, feel free to revert/add/correct. If someone feels it is appropriate, each template can be added to the corresponding articles as well. Regards.--Old Hoss 06:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Section merge

I propose merging Current and future commercialization and research with Future car technologies. These sections seem very similar. the commercialization and research section seems to contain nothing about commercialization, and would fit much better under the future tech section. Any objections? Nicholas SL Smith 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention - I went ahead and merged the sections - it seems to flow a lot better now - Nicholas SL Smith 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Semi-Protect

I added a restriction to this page - the level of vandalism was phenomenal. I'm not sure what made this page a target -- but it certainly is. Nicholas SL Smith 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops - how about a sorry - I just requested protection formally -- Nicholas SL Smith 03:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eye of the Mind! Nicholas SL Smith 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Environmental impact

I have removed the following paragraph as it is, as presently written, the sort of nonsense that gives the environmental movement a bad name.

"Car driving produces carbon dioxide. One gallon of petrol produces 2.26 kg of carbon. Garry Stokes from Joint Global Change Research Institute (Washington) has calculated that this equals one coal briquette thrown away every 400 meters. An average American drives 16 000 km a year which equals 40 000 briquettes. "

• "Car driving produces carbon dioxide." - true
• "One gallon" - what kind of gallon?
• "produces 2.26 kg of carbon" - no it doesn't. It produces some carbon in the form of soot, the rest is carbon compounds.
• to quote a briquette conversion requires a standard briquette. There isn't one.

Malcolma (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Malcolma. The cars emit between 120-250 grams of carbon per kilometer. Thus, in a 10 km car ride the environmental load is in average carbon dioxide equivalent to 2 kg of pure carbon. The grill briquettes are close to 100 % of carbon. You can weight the 2 kg of grill briquettes and it will help You to visualize the environmental load of the drive. . The differences in the legislation and car models could be included in the article.

Original: Car driving produces carbon dioxide. One gallon petrol produces 2.26 kg carbon. Garry Stokes from Joint Global Change Research Institute Washington) has calculated that this equals one coal briquette thrown away every 400 meters. An average American drives 16 000 km a year which equals 40 000 briquettes. Imagine if we could see them all. Watti Renew (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The level of childish vandalism to this page has reached epidemic proportions. I have proposed that it be semi-protected so that anonymous IP users can no longer claim that their school friend invented the car or question Henry Ford's sexuality.. For all you good users who regularly rollback these posts, please check also the post before the last post as often the last good version of the article is 2 or 3 edits back and undoing only the last edit can cause confusion. Thanks to everyone who monitors this page and as for the kids who keep scribbling on it - grow up, really. Dino246 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)