![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
the term "motor car" is more common in British English... well, not since about 1950. Angie86 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
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
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
How should automobile types and manufacturers be categorized? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Categorization and help us decide. —Morven 19:48, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
--> 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).
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)
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
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) ...
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)
"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:
Walkerma 18:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The intro paragraph currently states:
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)
I's four in most countries. Ericd 08:09, 4 October 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)
Explain which car classes there are : A, B, C, and so on -- 84.153.104.154 17:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Needs examination. I've read there's serious Q his tractor ever actually ran. Trekphiler 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
The car was inevented by Cral Benz; Why wasn't that added? Gerdbrendel 09:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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 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.]
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)
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)
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
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
SteveBaker 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
OK - my exhaustive (and exhausting) search of dictionaries (both online and 'dead-tree-format') reveals:
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)
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)
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, ....
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | An automobile (from Greek άυτο~, áuto~ - self~ and Latin mobilis - moving) is a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own engine, designed to run independently of rails of any kind, usually primarily on roads, and is not a motorcycle (or a related vehicle), having more than two wheels (usually four). There are different definitions of the automobile, and the breadth of the term differs between countries and languages. Often vehicles designed to transport goods and larger numbers of passnegers, such as buses, trucks or vans, are included as types of automobiles. Most commonly, however, especially in American English, the term denotes vehicles that have seating for between one and six people and are constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods. | ” |
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...
(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)
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)
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)
I'm removing the following uncited assertions:
Fact check 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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've moved the paragraph on etymology to here for discussion.
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)
are there articles about Chinese automobile production and Chinese brands please? Shame On You 02:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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?
Many thanks for your time SteveBaker 21:29, 8 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)
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)
I suggest include a picture of a car with arrows to its part names -- Mac 11:42, 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)
Just a suggestion. - Mak 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
In the Car Safety section it claims:
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:
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):
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
the term "motor car" is more common in British English... well, not since about 1950. Angie86 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
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
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
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)
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)
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:
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)
How should automobile types and manufacturers be categorized? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Categorization and help us decide. —Morven 19:48, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
--> 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).
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)
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
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) ...
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)
"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:
Walkerma 18:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The intro paragraph currently states:
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)
I's four in most countries. Ericd 08:09, 4 October 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)
Explain which car classes there are : A, B, C, and so on -- 84.153.104.154 17:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Needs examination. I've read there's serious Q his tractor ever actually ran. Trekphiler 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
The car was inevented by Cral Benz; Why wasn't that added? Gerdbrendel 09:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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.
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
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)
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 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.]
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)
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)
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
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
SteveBaker 19:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
OK - my exhaustive (and exhausting) search of dictionaries (both online and 'dead-tree-format') reveals:
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)
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)
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, ....
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | An automobile (from Greek άυτο~, áuto~ - self~ and Latin mobilis - moving) is a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own engine, designed to run independently of rails of any kind, usually primarily on roads, and is not a motorcycle (or a related vehicle), having more than two wheels (usually four). There are different definitions of the automobile, and the breadth of the term differs between countries and languages. Often vehicles designed to transport goods and larger numbers of passnegers, such as buses, trucks or vans, are included as types of automobiles. Most commonly, however, especially in American English, the term denotes vehicles that have seating for between one and six people and are constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods. | ” |
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...
(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)
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)
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)
I'm removing the following uncited assertions:
Fact check 17:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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've moved the paragraph on etymology to here for discussion.
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)
are there articles about Chinese automobile production and Chinese brands please? Shame On You 02:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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?
Many thanks for your time SteveBaker 21:29, 8 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)
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)
I suggest include a picture of a car with arrows to its part names -- Mac 11:42, 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)
Just a suggestion. - Mak 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
In the Car Safety section it claims:
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:
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):
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |