Jump to content

Talk:Car-free movement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carfree versus car-free

[edit]

Based on a suggestion, I have decided to replace all instances of "carfree" with "car-free", wich conforms to the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms recommendation. "Carfree" is certainly a neologism, whereas car-free is simply hyphinated words describing the movement. The word "carfree" should only be used for direct quotes from other sites (please site!) and in the names of organizations. Az7997 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skyemoor states, below: In WP, "Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context." This certainly represents the carfree concept and philosophy. There are 420,000 hits on Yahoo for "carfree", so a couple of people on a wiki talk page is not enough to alter the name, even if they were talking about carfree to car-free.
I will refrain from changing everything back to car-free to prevent an edit war, but I think the issue needs to be decided on this discussion page.
You are not going to change the world's usage of the term by having a couple of people talk about it here, especially where the article title already has one particular slant. Why not raise the subject on groups.yahoo.com/carfree or groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/ ? There you will be able to garner the attention of not one or two, but over 100 people. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find the WP reference you site above, about the usefulness of neologisms in WP. Please link to direct quotes. Until shown otherwise, I stand by the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms recommendation.
neologism. You haven't established that 'carfree' is a neologism. Indeed, 'car-free' would have the same status, hyphen or not.
The original edit was a suggestion brought up on the Talk:List of carfree places page, due to the ease of confusing the words "carfree" and "carefree".
One anonymous person brought it up, and you replied. That does not justify making unilateral changes. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, even many of the WP page titles go back and forth between car-free and carfree.
I've seen nothing of significance that determines this to be problematic. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for use, a Google search for the phrases "carfree", "car-free", and "car free" quickly uncovers instances where the phrases are used interchangeably. I think this indicates that there is no consensus within the movement on how to spell this word/phrase, yet another problem with neologisms.
Try again. Enter 'carfree" on Yahoo and see what you get back. You'll find no mass returns of car-free or car free. On the other hand, if you use car-free, you'll get all kinds of bogus returns that have nothing to do with the movement, which is a problem.
Indeed, even sites like [www.carfree.com carfree.com] and [www.worldcarfree.net worldcarfree.net] use both spellings.
You'll find that those sites use carfree over 95% of the time, and the other percentage is the occassional letter or article from another site or link to another site that uses car-free.
(Side note: please do not simply site the number of results a search engine returns for a query, as "carfree" could be returned for typos of "carefree", and "car free" could be a sentence fragment on an auto give-away. Use is more important than number of hits.)
Au contraire, a search on 'carfree' shows how vastly widespread the use is, which is the crux of this entire conversation. I cannot and will not purposefully ignore evidence about the matter at hand. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I therefore recommend we stick to car-free
"We" are not currently at an established use of only "car-free", which you seem to be attempting to project.
until a secondary sources , such a book or paper about the term, can be found to settles the dispute.Az7997 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I recommend that we stick with the current approach until a secondary source can be found to support the exclusive use of 'car-free'. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reframe this meandering debate. The page Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms states "neologisms generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Because neither "carfree" nor "car-free" return any definitions on [www.dictionary.com dictionary.com], I think this wiki style page should be used as the authoritative guide for the debate. However, the section entitled "articles on neologisms" justifies using such a new word, if it is the subject of the page. (It would be hard to talk about anything having to do with the movement without using the phrase "car-free"!)

It then comes down to a matter of spelling. There is still debate on the Talk:E-mail page on whether e-mail or email is correct, so we certainly won't solve the spelling issue on this one rarely used word. So, I did a brief survey to see which is used more. On a random [www.carfree.com carfree.com] page I chose, there were 7 instances of "carfree" and 1 of "car-free". On a random [www.carbusters.org carbusters.org] page, I found 4 of "carfree" and none of "car-free". Finally, I looked for books (using either spelling) and found the title Carfree Cities by JH Crawford, and a few books that use it only in their blurbs. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a definition of "car free" in Crawford, so it can't be considered a secondary refrence. However, Crawford also consistantly uses "carfree", so that seems to be the convention.

I revise my suggestion to be that the titles of all the related pages use "carfree", and a few important pages (such as the carfree movement page) mentioning that the term is also commonly used as "car-free" and "car free". I also recommend that we generally stick to "carfree" in the bodies of the articles when possible.Az7997 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend polling key persons, such as Eric Britton, J.H. Crawford, etc to see what their thoughts are. This page is one place for the discussion, but I would not consider it authoritative. Just as e-mail and email can co-exist, you may find out that carfree and car-free can as well. Skyemoor 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Eric Britton, and by what virtue is he a key person? Crawford's (or at least his/her editor's) preference is clear. No need for polling if literature exists. Az7997 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with switching to "carfree", and I do think they can coexist. As for numbers, they appear to be roughly similar. I tried added "living" to the google search to get rid of the irrelevant hits, and I got
"carfree living" OR "living carfree" : 620
"car-free living" OR "living car-free" : 22,900
To me this says that they're about on par, and one usage certainly shouldn't trump all instances. bikeable (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your upper line starts with "car-free living" and ends "living carfree". Shouldn't it be "carfree living"?Az7997
You're right, sorry. I corrected the numbers above, which interestingly give much more support for "car-free"... although this may just point to a differential use of "car-free" as an adverb. bikeable (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call me old fashioned, but I value words printed on paper more highly. Crawford's text is the only book I've found either way. However, an ISI search of journals is also interesting.
carfree returns 2 hits
car-free returns 3 hits
I may look into the literature for secondary sources, but they may not exist yet. Even scholars appear to go both ways!Az7997 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology: anti-car organizations

[edit]

I think I will ask to have the category "anti-car organizations" deleted. I signed up with wikipedia because I couldn't overlook its inaccurateness and presentation of a point of view. I would like feedback.

The author of category "anti-car organizations", GCarty, declares "This category lists organizations devoted to opposing the use of cars, usually for environmentalist reasons. See also Carfree movement." GCarty lists "Alternative Transportation Movement", "Car-free movement", "Carfree Cities", "Critical Mass", "Reclaim the Streets", "Street party", "Transport 2000", and "World Naked Bike Ride". He or she also lists "Anti-road protestors" as a sub-category.

I'll begin with the general inaccurateness: First, GCarty misapplies the word "organization" to movements, to activities, and to individuals acting autonomously. Second, not every thing he lists as an "anti-car organization" devotes itself "to opposing the use of cars". In order to make his classification, GCarty assumes that an opposition to some automobile uses equates to some general opposition to automobile use. Many automobile-aware urbanists and environmentalists view the distinction between appropriate automobile use and inappropriate automobile use as important, if not fundamental.

At another level of inaccurateness, GCarty writes "usually for environmentalist reasons" instead of "usually for environmental reasons". He or she might have made a typo or might have intentionally tried to introduce his POV by implying a distinction between the reasons of people who call themselves environmentalists and justifications based on environmental facts.

The selection of entities for inclusion in this "anti" category seems to depend on the expression of a point of view rather than the stated or evident intent of those landed in the category. Bill Carr 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why on earth has this been given this highly partisan title "Car-free" movement which implies some sort of liberation from 'evil' cars? Clearly, this has been written by an anti-car zealot. The proper title for this article is obviously the more accurate and neutral descriptor "Anti-Car Organisations" --Corinthian 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be a "partisan" name, but that's what the movement is called (and "anti-car organizations" makes it sound like a list). Google "car-free" and you get 2.6 million hits. Movements usually end up with names that resonate with those people in the movement. Similarly, we have Childfree to describe that group of people. bikeable (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just put in my two bits here, based on long and I hope balanced experience in quite a few bits and pieces of this.

  • The car-free cities movement does in fact exist and has a long and indeed honorable history (you can see some of this in the timeline set out in Car Free days.
  • On these grounds I believe that it has its rightful place in the Wikipedia. (Indeed, if the WP is unable to provide full and proper coverage of these building blocks of our societies, no matter how conceptual and unfamiliar to many, then it will suffer greatly as a first-stop shop for information and perspective.)
  • And BTW, I think that the entry as it stands is a great start. We can do better of course, but it woudl be qa mistake to run away from this for reasons of personal prejudices or views. The issues are real. The movement is real.
  • There are a fair range of flavors in the CFC movement and its ancillaries, some of which deliberately "in your face", others more thoughtful.
  • All that said, I think it is fair to say that it has had little on-street impact up to now.
  • The reasons for this? Well, it's a coin toss, but one certainly is that there is a lot of noble thinking and nostalgia in the movement, but not much when it comes to the impacting on the policy interface in order to get the job done.
  • This may come from the basically negative, conflictual visions involved for the most part. All great stuff if you are a fairly comfortable lad or lass with parents who have always paid most of your bills, but if engineering change in a pluralistic democratic society is your game, other approaches are required.
  • I think that the day in which the CFC movement can get together with other concerned groups and currents in order to provide practical menus of step by step progress toward a "less car" agenda (as opposed to hermetically 'car free'), then we will have more than resentment and nostalgia to build on.

Finally a quick personal note: I appreciate these people and groups, though they often exasperate me by their hectoring and ineffectiveness, and I would much like to see them evolve into being part of the solution (in an always imperfect world). To this end, I shall go today to the "idea factory" of the [World Car Free Days] program and invite the 250 or so people from around the world who check into and contribute to this collective process (much like the WP in fact, though more pluralistically activist than encyclopedic balanced) and invite them to come in here and see how they might contribute to deepen this entry. (I have also warned them carefully about the rules of the game here and referred them to the key sections prior to getting their hands into this). We’ll see what that gives. ericbritton 10:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]



I would also support having an entry for Carfree Movement. But I think the carfree movement has little to do with nostalgia, purity, or desire for confrontation. It's more about the recognition that cars have an overall negative impact (even when present in small numbers), that the "need" for cars can be eliminated through positive changes in infrastructure and urban form (reducing distances and making other modes more convenient), and that a car-lite environment does not provide the quality-of-life advantages of a carfree environment. But pragmatically speaking, I would like to have a car-lite environment and a carfree environment built side by side so that the public can judge which they prefer. Unless we arrive at that point and the carfree environment is found to be unpopular, we would be hasty to reject the carfree concept out of hand. And practically speaking, there are already quite a few carfree residential developments that have been successfully built in recent years. Also, I think the terms "carfree cities movement" and "carfree days movement" should not be used, as they just complicate things. The following is the definition of the carfree movement from the World Carfree Network website. I wrote it with input from others in the movement. You will see that it is very similar to the one on the Wikipedia page, meaning that someone did a cut, paste and modify:

Randall Ghent 15:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Carfree Movement?:

World Carfree Network uses the term "carfree movement" rather broadly, to refer to:

  • those promoting alternatives to car dependence and car culture, including alternative modes such as cycling, walking and public transport;
  • those promoting carfree lifestyle choices, within either a car-dependent, car-lite[1] or carfree local context;
  • those promoting the building of (usually mixed-use) carfree environments[2] on either brownfield or greenfield sites (usually sited to ensure easy access to a variety of non-automotive transport modes);
  • those promoting carfree days, using the events as tools to bring about long-term on-the-ground change in infrastructure and priorities (example: Bogota); and
  • those promoting the transformation of existing villages, towns and cities (or parts of them) into carfree environments.

1. Car-lite - Either a person or place that is not completely carfree, but uses or allows for a variety of alternative transport modes in addition to the car. (Car-lite environments tend to still devote at least half the street space to the automobile, with street widths usually similar to those in car-dependent environments.) The New Urbanists - an influential North American group of architects, developers and planners - are an example of people who promote and build car-lite environments, expressly stating that the automobile must be accommodated.

2. Carfree environments - Places that do not accommodate (permit the entry of) automobiles. (An "environment" can be a an entire village, town or city; a portion of a village, town or city; or a place such as a resort, intentional community or university.) Some carfree environments allow motorised vehicles for deliveries and emergency services; other such places use non-motorised alternatives for some or all of these purposes, which is preferable if feasible. Some carfree environments have peripheral parking, and are thus still somewhat car-dependent; therefore solutions should be sought to avoid this. Some people take things a step further and work to encourage local use of local products, thus reducing the dependence of their carfree environment on long-distance goods transport and supporting the local economy over the transnational economy.

Discussions

[edit]

You will find some possibly interesting discussions on this entry at

Comments invited

In Feb 2006, a discussion took place as of the merit of the term "car-free" in the movement's name. This discussion in archived, below. I believe the consensus was that the term car-free, as opposed to anti-car, was what the movement chose for itself and therefore the proper title. Clearly, the name itself does not subscribe to the NPOV, but much the same could be said about the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the abortion issue. The article should subscribe to NPOV, but the name of the movement need not. Az7997 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#Terminology: anti-car organizations

The discussion you cited does not come out in favor of car-free vs. carfree, it is about anti-car vs. carfree. And there is extensive referral to "carfree" on that page, more than car-free. In WP, "Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context." This certainly represents the carfree concept and philosophy. There are 420,000 hits on Yahoo for "carfree", so a couple of people on a wiki talk page is not enough to alter the name, even if they were talking about carfree to car-free. Skyemoor 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the archived discussion has nothing to do with whether or not to hyphenate car-free in the article. I just happen to be the same person who started the discussion on hyphenation and also who archived the long expositions about anti-car organizations. I will respond to your post about hyphenation under that sub-heading. Az7997 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

[edit]

I know one cannot use the car in some cities in Germany in the weekend. Can anyboyd include more information about this and the alternative tranport used, between other information ?. --Altermike 20:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One promotes the transit buses, free park lots and bycicles. --HybridBoy 20:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is neutral. --Nopetro 20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Car is not a deity, at least of health ;) --Mac 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

This seems to be a fair description of the carfree movement/idea/culture. If the neutrality\balance is disputed maybe someone can suggest what needs fixing? As for using weasel words, I am not sure that I see a way around it, since this sub-culture is composed of everything from academic planners to anarchist street kids. I suppose a few quotations from bike trailer-hauling-moms-in-the-street from the newspaper might help? --137.82.163.42 16:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

In an attempt to address the issues brought up by the tags on this article have have done some re-organization and editing of it.

At this point I think that it really needs some references and some information of a critical nature to provide some balance to it. I have started a critical section, but it contains a tag. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restructured, sectionalised and focused

[edit]

I have restructured the article creating section headings into which further content can be added, have created more of an emphasis on the strands of the movement itself and have worked the current content into that structure or removed it if the content can be found be following links from the main article. While I was working on it Ahunt also reworked the section headings and challenged the assertions. I have incorporated ideas from his edit and hope the resultant work combines the best bits of both. I will now start adding references to the articlePeterIto (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you have made look good! - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I though the article really need a picture to add some interest and break up the appearance of a full page of dense text. I hope that the one I found is appropriate? - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues tag

[edit]

User:All Is One tagged this article for cleanup, copyedit, expand and refimprove. With a number of fact tags already there the refimprove is obviously clear, but you are going to have to provide some more specifics on the other three parameters for any improvements to take place. What needs copyediting, in what direction should the text be expanded (subjects that you think need to be covered?) and how does it need to be cleaned up? I don't see it as needing clean up, so some more information is needed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the multiple issues tag since you were concerned. Your work here is really nice, just saw that not too many people are taking care of the article. While reading the article, it seemed to need work on those issues. Just some thoughts... Take care. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, personally, I haven't done much at all on this article! I wasn't saying that your tags were unjustified, just that I was hoping you could provide some more specific guidance here on the talk page to help everyone improve the article. If you think it has problems, then by all means tag it, but please add a bit of info here on what needs to be done. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the reimprove tag was that there are [citation needed] tags throughout the article as you mentioned, so I thought that some more clarification would be helpful. I understand that the fact tags cover most of the unreferenced material, but just wanted to blanket them to firm up your recent edit removing unreferenced material.
I am no expert in cleanup or copyediting and thought that some fresh perspective from other editors may help to improve the article's grammar and readability.
The expand tag may take an engineering direction to show how urban planning is considering the subject matter.
Maybe we should tackle only one item at a time; the [Friendly Program] that I used does jumble the multiple tags a bit, somewhat cluttering the lead section.
Please tag accordingly, if you like. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes good sense to me. I definitely understand the need for a refimprove tag - any article with more than one or two fact tags should have that if only to alert readers that not everything is sourced. As far as the other items go, okay, that all makes sense. As I mentioned, I wasn't opposed to the tagging, just wanted more info so that the work could proceed in the right direction, hopefully. - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added info

[edit]

Added this: In order to keep cars out of specific zones in cities or outside the city center entirely, (fixed or stationary) bollards can be placed and car parkings can be foreseen. Implementation of bus stations, bicycle sharing stations, Shweeb terminus stations, ... near these car parkings can then offer an alternative mode of transportation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.178.137 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as it is unsourced - please see WP:V and what is a "schweeb"? - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schweeb, see http://shweeb.com/ I just mentioned it because it creates a "second road layer", other things that do the same are cable cars, sky cabs, cargocaps[1], ...

Genetics4good (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cargocap

Economics of going car-free

[edit]

It's weird that the economics of going car-free haven't been described yet. Are there no papers describing the economic output of a city before it was car-free and after it became car-free ? I think that economic output would be far greater, even when not taking into account the health costs due to the bad air quality and car accidents, ... The thought I'm having is that, if a city is created in a way that some motorized vehicles (ie garbage trucks, delivery trucks for goods for shops, ...) can still access the city, but most personal large vehicles (cars) can not (ie using retractible bollards), transport for everyone would be sped up considerably, and less fuel would be wasted for the transport (no traffic jams)hence benefitting the economy in that sense as well. I'm also guessing that more people would visit car-free cities (more tourism), ... hence increasing sales for shops.

If someone can find a paper on this, add it as a reference, and also add a short text on it. Genetics4good (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good thing to add! - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Car-free movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Car-free movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place of motorcycles in car-free movements

[edit]

The first line of this article states: " ... brought together by a shared belief that large and/or high-speed motorized vehicles (cars, trucks, tractor units, motorcycles, ...) are too dominant in most modern cities. The goal of the movement is to create places where motorized vehicle use is greatly reduced or eliminated"

Is this really correct ? I get that most people in the car-free movement are against large motorized vehicles like cars and trucks, but are they also against motorcycles ? I don't think there's a large safety ans space issue with this latter. Emissions would be a problem, but only if fossil (non bio-) fuels or batteries are used. So, can we remove the "motorcycles" from the first line, or at least reword it to reflect that not all people in the movement think this way ?

If everyone in the car-free movement is really against this (against all motorised vehicles), then the article name "car-free movement" should be altered to "Motorised vehicle-free movement".

Another issue is that these lines were removed from the urban design section:

"Bicycle boulevards are motorways that have been optimized for bicycle usage. Right of way goes to the bicycles instead of cars; cars however can still make use of the street (hence different from Segregated cycle facilities).

Segregated cycle facilities are streets designed solely for bicycle usage. They are much more narrow than motorways."

Can they be reincluded ? Genetics4good (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Private parking spaces

[edit]

Another thing that hasn't been discussed is privatising parking spaces. I was wondering whether this hasn't been done by cities in some streets in cities. Some companies for instance require their employees to have a car for their work (car being essential for their work). Not all of these companies actually have a parking accomodation on their own terrain, so need to use curb parking spaces. It would be useful in these cases that cities would make these parking spaces usable only by employees of that company, for instance by marking the vehicle_registration_plate of the car of that company in the parking space and making it illegal for any other cars to park there.

Another form of privatising parking spaces is by replacing more regular paking spaces with Accessible parking spaces. This too isn't mentioned in the article. Genetics4good (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These issues can be added, but we need sources. Do you have any that ca be cited? - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Car-free movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Car-free_movement/Archive_1&oldid=1021909625"