Talk:Pillar (car)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pillar (car) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Opening comment

The article needs clarification as to nomenclature, which may or may not be the case with the use of this terminology in the automobile industry.

Specifically, it is unclear whether pillars at specific locations are assigned specific letters or lettered consecutively. The line drawing shows A-B-C for a sedan, A-B-C-D for a station wagon (the SUV), and A-C for the hardtop. The text implies that the letters are assigned consecutively, which would imply that the rear pillar on the hardtop is a "B" pillar (no "C" pillar). Similarly, one would ask if the limo has A-B-C-D-E pillars or A-B-B-B-C pillars.

The example of the station wagon is consistent either way, because of the position of the rear window pillars, so according to the line drawings a Chevy Nomad would have A-C-D pillars (no B pillar).

- stan (unitacx)

dash or no dash

Is it "A pillar" or "A-pillar" --both are used in the article. I vote for dashed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markhu (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bus

Just to push the definition, what if you have a school bus with more than 26 pillars. Would this nomenclature still hold (then what, AA pillar, BB pillar, etc.?), or is that just nonsense? —Ben FrantzDale 19:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Useage

I can confirm that "pillar" is the correct English term. Top Gear and Fifth Gear both refer to "pillar", not "post".

American English

"Post" is the correct American english term for a "b-pillar". Only used to describe cars that have a hardtop model. i.e. on the Wikipedia page for "Chevrolet Bel Air" the forst car would be described as a "two door post" and the second would be a "hardtop".209.112.198.165 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article Driver visibility

Hello

I mover a part to the article "Driver visibility" Here we can write something about windshield reflection , truck driver blind spots, everything that eliminates the visibility

There is a other article about passengers car blind spots

good luck to you all

Stef

drivers head in the A,B,C,D pillar image

Is it possible to draw a human head in this image

I can not edit this file type

Thanks Stef

Pillar (automobile)

From time to time someone moves this article to Pillar (car), as has been done recently, without discussion and without regard for the fact that numerous artcles link to subsections of Pillar (automobile) an will be orphaned -- or already have been. Please undo this move, and instead, discuss the move. 842U (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been "orphaned". There is a redirect in place. The main article is at car. No discussion is required. In fact, the article began at this title, and was unilaterally moved away from it by a user with serious misconceptions. I merely restored the original title. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article for motorcycle tyre is tire. We all know how that ended. I'm all about bringing back things to their original spelling (see my request at village pump(policy) which keeps getting picked apart by pedants, as opposed to being discussed...) anyways, without the rant, it should be moved back rather than changed without a move request, as that is the life we're living in now.

Cheers, ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're not living any "life". This remains. RGloucester — ☎ 00:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was out of the country and unable to edit while the following discussion occurred, which I accept. What would have been far more effective would have been for the original mover to have first proposed the move, discussed the move, and sought consensus first. The whole English Variation is mute to me. It was uncollaborative to simply move the article as a fait accompy. 21:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Bold move, now validated by consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar (car) → Pillar (automobile) – Was changed without dicussion, as "parent article" is Car. EXACTLY the same rationale was put forth to move Motorcycle tyre to Motorcycle tire and was shot down by a vocal british English contingent, thus, this is not an uncontroversial move, though, I completely agree it should be at "Pillar(car)", it should be changed back, and discussed first. 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not an ENGVAR issue as Americans use the term "car" as well! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I never claimed it was an American issue. It's a guideline issue. Articles shouldn't be moved without consensus. There was just an editor moving. I'm just saying, let's move it back, and talk about it first. Wowsers. ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The main article is at car. There is no ENGVAR issue. "Car" is the most common term regardless of where one is from. It is also much more WP:CONCISE. The article started here, and should remain here. RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Khestwol (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If move, then move to Pillar (automobile) with space. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nominator does not appear to like spaces, but we use spaces to separate the parenthetical disambiguator, unlike multiple instances of the nominator not using it. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be silly -- obviously the nomination here is for the switch from car to automobile.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as the nominator, I'm not here because I don't like spaces, nor do I have any real strong feelings about the subject of whether it should be car or automobile, nor do I feel that it is an ENGVAR issue. I never said it should be restored due to ENGVAR, I said it should be restored as it was unilaterally moved to match a parent article, which, using the precedent set by motorcycle tyre is completely against the spirit of wikipedia guidlines. My suggestion, people SUPPORT this move, and then immediately close it, and then nominate it to be moved to whatever you feel it should be. If, as a community, we now want articles to match the parent, that is great, it will clear up a whole lot of issues related to cars (windshields, tires, etc). ~~Cheers, ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you weren't claiming it was an ENGVAR issue why did you specifically mention the British objections to the motorcycle tyre renaming? That was an ENGVAR issue. The fact is that "car" is far more common than "automobile" throughout the English-speaking world and this article was therefore correctly renamed. That's not the case with "tyre" and "tire". Completely different issues. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Motorcycle (tyre) was to be moved to motorcycle (tire) because the parent article """tire""" was a different word than the daughter article. It may have been challenged due to ENGVAR, but the nominator was attempting to move it to match parent and daughter titles, which I believe was summed up in the motorcycle tyre article move by RGloucester

(From motorcycle tyre talk)""Nonsense. Nowhere in the "summary style guideline" (not a policy) does it say anything about selecting a particular variety of English or style. More importantly, our article titles policy says not to change between varieties of English, and that inconsistency in variety is both normal and desirable. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "" or

(From motorcycle tyre talk)""You must be trolling. The summary articles guideline says: "Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable". That has nothing to do with the variety of English, or the style of text used. It says nothing to the effect that a single variety of English is mandated across titles with the same word in the name, and in fact the WP:TITLEVAR policy directly contradicts this. Sorry, but RMs are based on policy, and so is consensus. If you want to ignore the policies, that's fine. However, on Wikipedia, policy is what determines how we title articles. That's why we have a policy. You are ignoring it. I will ignore people that choose to ignore the policy. RGloucester — ☎ 16:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)""

or by Necrosthesp who stated eloquently, just 2 months ago

(From motorcycle tyre talk)"I'm fully aware of why the move was supposedly requested (note that at least one supporter of the move above did use as a rationale the supposed fact that the American spelling was more common!). However, we are not required to be consistent in article titles, as has already been pointed out several times. If we were then many articles would be moved from American spelling to British spelling too. I would then await the screams of anger from American editors and I would guarantee that the moves would be reversed in double-quick time using the policy were are quoting here as an argument... It really is better to maintain the status quo unless you want to open a massive can of worms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "

I fail to see how this is different. All I'm asking here, is that RGloucester should have had a discussion before moving the article, as opposed to doing it without one. If he wants it moved, fine, and the community can agree, and I'm all for that. Just go through the correct process. Cheers, ~~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an ENGVAR matter, so all of that is irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this article was moved because the main article was at car, the fact is that this is still a better disambiguator than automobile, since it is a far more common term! Unlike the previous issue it is not an ENGVAR issue so there should be no real objection. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why aren't we allowed to have an objection to a user changing a title without a proper discussion, and why is everyone getting defensive about it? Honestly, if everyone is convinced that the community will support this new title, then, great, let's do it. Be aware of the precedent we're setting though, that it's completely ok to change the title of an article to match the parent articles without discussion. I believe windscreen wiper should be changed to match the parent article, thus should be pretty easy with this precedent, yes? ~ipuser 90.198.209.24 (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD is a policy. Anyone can move an article if they want, regardless of whether there was a discussion or not. If others disagree, they can revert the changes. RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as RGloucester says, there is no requirement to discuss moves if an editor considers that move to be sensible. I have myself probably moved thousands of articles without discussion and very few of those moves have been objected to. No precedent is being set here, since the precedent already exists and always has done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.