![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
One more time, I want to propose two options to substitute the image in the lead of the article. As argued before, using photos of small city cars does not represent the current reality of most of the all-electric models available in the market. These two options shown below more modern electric cars (BMW i3 and Tesla Model S), and also the charging cords, which previously has been the prevailing criteria, an image that screams electric car. My favorite is the BMW i3, please express your opinion below. Thx. -- Mariordo ( talk) 01:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not use a compilation? I don't think there will ever be a single image that fulfills all the requirements mentioned above. In addition, images of a compilation can easily be replaced one by one when a better version or a new model requires an update. An example is posted above. Rfassbind – talk 12:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, the image-compilation is just a (partial) example that focused on the issue of the different models. Close-up images related to charging (cable, socket), electric motors, and batteries would of course also be part of a compilation. In addition, a historic model should also be included, as this would be representative of the topic as well. Since there are so many specific ideas of how the lead-image has to look like, and a fully fleshed-out compilation takes hours of evaluating images, this is the best I can do to convey the concept of a compilation. It was never meant to be a final version. Everybody is invited to add, remove and replace images in the above example. Use colspan=2 | [[File:...
if you want to display a larger image across the whole width of the box.
Rfassbind
– talk
13:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't too bad:
GliderMaven ( talk) 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thought these might useful references for established dealers not wanting to sell you an electric car:
Hi - This is an organizational account for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science and advocacy group that works on various issues, including vehicle electrification. We recently released an online tool that looks at the CO2e emissions from specific EV models in specific ZIP codes (the ZIP codes are tied to electric regions, using the most recent data from EPA's eGrid). It's drawing from a robust dataset, including information on each vehicle's efficiency and, for plug-in hybrids, the percentage of miles driven on electricity vs gasoline. The C02e of a given fuel includes life cycle emissions (aka, extracting, refining, and transporting oil for gasoline, and all the emissions associated with electricity production).
Anyhow, we thought this information may be of utility for Wikipedia users, but obviously won't add it to the article's text ourselves. Have a look, and thanks. Scientificsolutions ( talk) 17:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A car which can run with electric .
The engien which work with the help of electric.It can run in 80 (km/h).
In this Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).</ref>car will need more energy so we can use wind energy as a source .
With the help of turbine fixed in the place of engina .
when the car get started by solar energy then the car will run then the wind energy will start working.
So, the car can run fast and he will get power from both the sides . — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
27.49.17.37 (
talk)
02:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
BAHAHAHA now youre talking about solar cars?!? lol, there is no way you people can get away from the ac current is there? The electric car industry is far behind and hasnt even grasped wat electro-magnetism can do. It can at least triple the mileage of a conventional electric lead acid.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on
Electric car. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
For various reasons, the US government has decided that a "kWh", as used on everyone's electricity bills and many gas bills, in America and in the rest of the world, shouldn't apply to electric cars in the United States, and they claim to have done a survey proving that Americans find it 'less confusing' to use kW-hrs, and the official U.S. mpg-e stickers use that convention.
So at the moment, the figures for electric cars follow that, and use kW-hrs on electric car related pages, and this is fairly consistent.
Some people tried to change it inconsistently on some pages, but it would need changing on the convert pages as well as in some templates and so forth to be fully consistent. So I've been reverting it back so that car usage as kW-hrs is used.
If we have consensus to continue with the US government's de facto standard, fine, but do people want to change it to simply kWh? What should Wikipedia do? GliderMaven ( talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the wiki way is to use kW-hrs when reporting USAn numbers, but use kWh elsewhere. I'd fully support just using kWh. Presumably the other alternative has been dismissed as too ridiculous Greglocock ( talk) 01:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Article_size Quote: A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see A rule of thumb below.
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100 kB | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60 kB | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) |
> 50 kB | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 40 kB | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1 kB | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded, see Wikipedia:Stub. |
What process should we use to trim the article? Discuss each section by section? Be bold? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The easy thing to do would be to make any section that refers to a main article just a summery, rather than vomiting forth of the same stuff that is in that main article. Greglocock ( talk) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
What do you think of moving the electric car running costs table to its own article? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 19:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody know much about Nikola Motors, who are manufacturing an electric heavy duty truck?
http://electrek.co/2016/06/13/nikola-motor-pre-orders-worth-2-billion-electric-truck/
https://nikolamotor.com/pdfs/Nikola_Pre-Sale_June13_FINAL.pdf
I can't seem to find a WP article on them.
Stepho
talk
07:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Per wp:lead the lead should contain a summary of the information that is most important. Showing how electric car sales are rising makes the subject very interesting. I propose we add or change the lead image to include this chart. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
As agreed in previous discussions, the image in the lead should be agreed upon by consensus here. I just removed the pic below (as per MoS there should be just one except in special cases and the editor ignore the hidden message about seeking consensus here), but I believe it is a good candidate, really screaming electric car. The quality is not that great, but to be fair, let's hear what other editors have to say.-- Mariordo ( talk) 02:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Supprot as lead image. I also believe that it will be a good picture for the lead as it is showing both car and charger very clearly. The previous one was taken from very far distance. - Mar11 ( talk) 02:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Support - I've got no major problems with the suggested Rome image. And I like the perspective going into the distance. Stepho talk 03:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Support - Finally an image that really screams electric car!-- Mariordo ( talk) 04:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thought this was interesting. The world's fastest electric car (as of July 2016) is a heavily customised Enfield 8000 from the 1970s. http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/07/the-flux-capacitor-is-now-the-worlds-fastest-street-legal-electric-car/ Stepho talk 03:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps(as is already in use in the nation of South Korea Several miles devoted to Eletricrified Roads recharging Electric vehichles since 2013!) Several mile sof Freeway/turnpike could be devoted to recharging EVS as they run on same? This would certainly improve range of a Electric Vehicle! The E>R>A founded this year 2016 to promote eletrified roads globally! Thanks1 Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D,D.ULC Founder,E>R>A>ELECTRIFIED ROAD ASSOCIATION. And Founder of the Global Energy Indeppendence Day(Movement Since 2005 Held every Jul.10th Birhdate of the Great Energy pioneer/inventor Nikola tesla(1856-1943) 104.34.181.144 ( talk) 21:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Even though Electric cars create less air pollution while driving, what about the creation of the battery in the car? Is the creation of the battery bad for the environment? -- Aaronmonoogan ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Charging stations may not be efficient 24/7 because their are peak hours for charging at certain hours of the day can be more costly. -- Aaronmonoogan ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The use of symbols from the Systeme International (SI) is advised where applicable, also by US government, see the NIST advice on units: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/international.html http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication330e2001.pdf and of course also: /info/en/?search=International_System_of_Units#Printing_SI_symbols This means for example that in this Electric car entry kW.h is to be replaced by kWh. The base data are to be metric, with in brackets local units where relevant.
Interest in this Electric car subject is global, so local references should be avoided where possible. Value measures are in local currencies unavoidably, with the US dollar as global reference (with currency rate as link to local currencies). Where more currencies are relevant the reference should as much as possible to main currencies involved. For electric cars this would be US Dollars; Euros; Chinese Yuan (CNY, Renminbi), and maybe Japanese Yen. Norwegian Krone (highest EV density), Russian Rubles, UK Pounds and Turkish Lira would come in only in special cases, not in the Electric car entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.91.62 ( talk) 09:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
History was trimmed. I think more should be trimmed. Let us know if you think notable information should be added or feel free to trim further. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
German inventor Andreas Flocken should be mentioned in History of electric car. LarasTasche ( talk) 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
History jumps from 1888 to the 1990s? Was there NOTHING notable in between? What about GM's electric car that caused all that drama? And why would anyone consider an 1888 car to be the first "real" electric car if there was a practical production model in 1884?
Steve8394 (
talk)
17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Electric car. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Electric car. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/cit-sum-com-542_en.pdfCitizens'{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pikeresearch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NEV-11-Executive-Summary.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about creating a separate article with that info and just keeping the highlights? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 13:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
"Electric cars by country" section is long. What do you think of trimming it down to one paragraph and one chart at left? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks, Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 01:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we should condense the different battery options of the same models into one entry and just use the range from the most basic to the most advanced option. Right now we have 2 entries about the BMW i3, 2 about the Fiat 500e, 2 about the Nissan Leaf, 7(!) about the Tesla Model S, and 2 about the Tesla Model X.
With all the new EV models and versions being released within the next year, listing every single option for every single model will make the table become extremely cluttered.
My proposal is to condense the table like this (using the example of the BMW i3):
|- style="text-align:center;"
| style="text-align:left;" |
BMW i3 (60
A·h)
[1]
[2] to (94
A·h)
[1] || 2014/15/16/17 ||124 mpg-e (60A)
(27 kW·h/100 mi
16.9 kW⋅h/100 km) to 118 mpg-e (94A)
(29 kW·h/100 mi
17.7 kW⋅h/100 km) || 137 mpg-e (60A)
(25 kW·h/100 mi
15.3 kW⋅h/100 km) to 129 mpg-e (90A)
(16.2 kW⋅h/100 km) ||111 mpg-e (60A)
(30 kW·h/100 mi
18.9 kW⋅h/100 km) to 106 mpg-e (90A)
(19.8 kW⋅h/100 km) || $0.88 (60A) - $0.94 (90A) || $550 || style="text-align:left;" | (1) (3) (4) (5)
That would shrink the list from 31 to 16 entries. Over the next 1-2 years, there will be at least 30 new models released. Listing every option for every model would mean the list will grow to over 100 entries very quickly, and I find it too cluttered as it is already. I'll also post this suggestion over to the template talk page, but even if it wouldn't be changed there, I feel like it should be condensed here at least.
Sarrotrkux ( talk) 22:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see Templates for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 5#Template:Comparison electric car efficiency. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This article has a pattern of giving excessive detail about the sources cited, and repetitively referring to the source in the text. WP:INTEXT citations are appropriate primarily when citing opinions or controversial ideas. Most of this article is citing reputable studies (and if they're not so reputable, delete them), which merely need to be footnoted without going on and on about who the source is. Constantly inserting "According to the findings..." and other such tics only pad the word count. Example:
A study conducted at the Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) published in 2014 found that many car dealers are less than enthusiastic about plug-in vehicles. ITS conducted 43 interviews with six automakers and 20 new car dealers selling plug-in vehicles in California's major metro markets. The study also analyzed national and state-level J.D. Power 2013 Sales Satisfaction Index (SSI) study data on customer satisfaction with new car dealerships and Tesla retail stores. The researchers found that buyers of plug-in electric vehicles were significantly less satisfied and rated the dealer purchase experience much lower than buyers of non-premium conventional cars. According to the findings, plug-in buyers expect more from dealers than conventional buyers, including product knowledge and support that extends beyond traditional offerings. [3] [4]
This only needs to say:
A 2014 study found many car dealers are not enthusiastic about selling plug-in vehicles. [3] [4] Surveys of buyers of plug-in electric vehicles showed they were significantly less satisfied and rated the dealer purchase experience much lower than buyers of non-premium conventional cars. Plug-in buyers expect more from dealers than conventional buyers, including product knowledge and support that extends beyond traditional offerings. [3] [4]
By my count there are at least 9 instances of this, each running one or two long paragraphs that could have their word count easily cut in half. In many of them, it isn't even necessary to say "A study found..." at all, but only to state the facts and footnote it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Electric car. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Improvement Idea: Talk about how electric cars entire economic impact could be worse for the environment as a whole because of the mining of lithium and pollution associated with creating batteries and other components in said car. TacoEditSquad ( talk) 01:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
When recharged by low-emission electrical power sources, electric vehicles can reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to IC engines.
No working economist with a brain believes this statement, as written.
The Canadian government used to assure Canadians that none of our Candu tritium was exported to the U.S. nuclear program. Sort of. It worked like this: the Americans supplied all their non-nuclear needs with Canadian tritium, and then diverted almost the whole of their own tritium production into their nuclear weapons stockpile.
No enablement here. What a crock. But of course, these assurances were an entirely bogus enterprise to begin with. It's just not possible to draw these kinds of lines in a complex, fungible economy.
There's a similar fallacy at the poker table. Some players look at the pot and say "I've got ten of my chips in there, I've got to win them back." Wrong. The pot has 30 chips, and if you think you can invest 10 more chips to win the pot (now 40 chips large) with 25% odds (or better) you should consider doing so. The history of the chips already in the pot has no mathematical relevance, it's just weird magical thinking (which, unhappily, tends to correlate with losing your shirt).
If aggregate electric car demand triggers an increased marginal investment into renewal generation infrastructure then and only then do electric cars displace emissions.
Everything else about this story is a form of greenwashing (with clean Canadian tritium, and not that dirty American stuff).
I'm not going to change this myself, because I'm hot under the collar. Please consider this my nomination for the next editor to wade in. — MaxEnt 16:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Worse, nearly every electric car, motorcycle, or other new green technology company is built on a confidence model. They routinely ask for customers to put down thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in deposits for vaporware vehicles, often years ahead of time. That requires maintaining a near-religious level of enthusiasm among electric car optimists. There is a great deal of money at stake in servicing this particular point of view, while letting people off the hook for seriously thinking about changing their lifestyle.
So this should be written in a way that attributes these claims more directly to the advocates and marketing for electric cars, and acknowledges that there is an industry with a product to sell and a lot of capital at risk if it doesn't sell. When you bring up Norway or whatever, you have to make clear how difficult it would be to scale that up to the rest of the world, particularly the US, which is orders of magnitude more car-centric than the UK or Norway, and has cities that are orders of magnitude less dense than anywhere in Europe. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
References
Please seek consensus here for removing almost all content regarding sales of electric cars. Since this tecnology is in the early stages of adoption, I believe the stats are relevant and deserve to be included in the article, this is NOT promotional as you claim. BEV prices are still higher than ICE vehicles, this is why price and sales are relevant now.-- Mariordo ( talk) 04:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems you missed the part of WP:NOCATALOG that I transcribed as follows in bold: An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention...
Finally, for your information, I did improve and expand (or was the main editor) to a total of 12 articles and went through their review to achieve Good Article rating, most related to green cars and sustainable mobility, with no questioning of any of the reviewers of your issues/concerns about pricing and sales stats, much less your narrow interpretation of WP:NOTCATALOG (see the reviews for Congestion pricing, Flexible-fuel vehicle, Plug-in electric vehicle, Ethanol fuel in Brazil, Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels, History of ethanol fuel in Brazil, Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil, Mitsubishi i MiEV, Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt, Electric vehicle warning sounds, and Capital Bikeshare.) Inevitably as time goes by, the quality of some of these articles has deteriorated, particularly when there is a lot of traffic/editors or as material gets dated. But your approach of deleting content is not constructive, for a good reason most of these articles have kept their GA ratings. And please, do not start multiple discussions as your are doing now with Nissan Leaf (you already got it demoted of its GA status instead of trying to fix it). Let's finish the discussion here first, and above all, let's here what other editors have to say and reach consensus. I did not address your systematic tagging of these issues (regardlesss of me being the main contributor) because I am here to add content, to add value, not to waste my time arguing, but your complete removal of the above mentioned section was too much, as well as the poor state in which the electric car use by country was left. Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 05:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
TLDR the main problem with the EV articles is WP:OWN by Mariordo. Specifically in this case it seems odd to have exhaustive lists of specific vehicles which could be handled by a category. Unless that list is complete then how do you decide which vehicles are on it? You'd have to have an RS for the selection criteria. As to prices themselves, they vary by market and with the amount of subsidy. So you'd need to include the selling price in each market. Which is starting to sound very absurd. Perhaps split sales and prices off into a new article? Greglocock ( talk) 19:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:OWN is a problem. I hate to delete such large quantities of writing that Mariordo has done. It's not a good thing to delete so much of anyone's work. But it doesn't belong to Mariordo, and it never should have been written at such length in the first place. The redundancy across articles is far out of bounds. WP:Summary style encourages some repetition, to give readers the gist of the main article, but not repeat paragraph after paragraph of the same excruciating detail. And the fact that we have these EV articles that are two, three, four, even five times longer than articles about the Ford Model T, or Mustang, or Chevrolet Corvette, or Jeep CJ or Volkswagen Beetle. Highly significant car lines that were in production for decades, yet an EV that has been made for only a copule years is FIVE times longer? Something is wrong there. Right? Can you not see that? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Once you get into the weeds of the price of a gallon fuel and a kwh of electricity in the US and the UK and France and Sweden you've gone down the wrong rabbit hole. Broad generalities. Not specifics, unless a specific price is exceptional, such a record high or record low. The rapidly falling price of the Model T is a great example: when the price dropped below the average price of a motorcycle, the US motorcycle industry contracted. That's a far cry from the precise cost of ownership of a Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S. History might judge that one of these price points was historically significant, as with the Model T, but in the present day, all we have is a pile of raw data and a lot of salesmen trying to move cars. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, the article did not mention fuel cell vehicles at all. I added a short text on the introduction, but the rest of the article describes exclusively battery electric cars. Can you help to fix this? -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason for all this is WP:Summary style. Articles should be structured in a hierarchy of topic and sub-topic. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't dispute that all of the EV and alt-fuel vehicle article are kind of a dumpster fire of poor organization and rampant redundancy, and they will take years to sort out. But the first step is to make it more rational, not to cling to the irrational structure to the bitter end. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Lets look at the current articles on the subject
There is a lot of duplication and the whole topic could do with a clean up. -- Salix alba ( talk): 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It’s easy to get overwhelmed trying to fix everything at once. Remember that perfection is not required, and it’s ok if the process gets messy. I’d suggest:
It’s a lot to do so try to focus and not worry about the big picture too much. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
"Unlike gasoline-powered vehicles, the electric ones were less fast"
This is not correct.
In 1898 the world speed record for a car was in an electric car that went 65.79 mph (105.88 km/h). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.121.12 ( talk) 14:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
One more time, I want to propose two options to substitute the image in the lead of the article. As argued before, using photos of small city cars does not represent the current reality of most of the all-electric models available in the market. These two options shown below more modern electric cars (BMW i3 and Tesla Model S), and also the charging cords, which previously has been the prevailing criteria, an image that screams electric car. My favorite is the BMW i3, please express your opinion below. Thx. -- Mariordo ( talk) 01:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
| ||||
|
Why not use a compilation? I don't think there will ever be a single image that fulfills all the requirements mentioned above. In addition, images of a compilation can easily be replaced one by one when a better version or a new model requires an update. An example is posted above. Rfassbind – talk 12:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, the image-compilation is just a (partial) example that focused on the issue of the different models. Close-up images related to charging (cable, socket), electric motors, and batteries would of course also be part of a compilation. In addition, a historic model should also be included, as this would be representative of the topic as well. Since there are so many specific ideas of how the lead-image has to look like, and a fully fleshed-out compilation takes hours of evaluating images, this is the best I can do to convey the concept of a compilation. It was never meant to be a final version. Everybody is invited to add, remove and replace images in the above example. Use colspan=2 | [[File:...
if you want to display a larger image across the whole width of the box.
Rfassbind
– talk
13:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't too bad:
GliderMaven ( talk) 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thought these might useful references for established dealers not wanting to sell you an electric car:
Hi - This is an organizational account for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science and advocacy group that works on various issues, including vehicle electrification. We recently released an online tool that looks at the CO2e emissions from specific EV models in specific ZIP codes (the ZIP codes are tied to electric regions, using the most recent data from EPA's eGrid). It's drawing from a robust dataset, including information on each vehicle's efficiency and, for plug-in hybrids, the percentage of miles driven on electricity vs gasoline. The C02e of a given fuel includes life cycle emissions (aka, extracting, refining, and transporting oil for gasoline, and all the emissions associated with electricity production).
Anyhow, we thought this information may be of utility for Wikipedia users, but obviously won't add it to the article's text ourselves. Have a look, and thanks. Scientificsolutions ( talk) 17:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
A car which can run with electric .
The engien which work with the help of electric.It can run in 80 (km/h).
In this Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).</ref>car will need more energy so we can use wind energy as a source .
With the help of turbine fixed in the place of engina .
when the car get started by solar energy then the car will run then the wind energy will start working.
So, the car can run fast and he will get power from both the sides . — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
27.49.17.37 (
talk)
02:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
BAHAHAHA now youre talking about solar cars?!? lol, there is no way you people can get away from the ac current is there? The electric car industry is far behind and hasnt even grasped wat electro-magnetism can do. It can at least triple the mileage of a conventional electric lead acid.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 11 external links on
Electric car. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
For various reasons, the US government has decided that a "kWh", as used on everyone's electricity bills and many gas bills, in America and in the rest of the world, shouldn't apply to electric cars in the United States, and they claim to have done a survey proving that Americans find it 'less confusing' to use kW-hrs, and the official U.S. mpg-e stickers use that convention.
So at the moment, the figures for electric cars follow that, and use kW-hrs on electric car related pages, and this is fairly consistent.
Some people tried to change it inconsistently on some pages, but it would need changing on the convert pages as well as in some templates and so forth to be fully consistent. So I've been reverting it back so that car usage as kW-hrs is used.
If we have consensus to continue with the US government's de facto standard, fine, but do people want to change it to simply kWh? What should Wikipedia do? GliderMaven ( talk) 22:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I suspect the wiki way is to use kW-hrs when reporting USAn numbers, but use kWh elsewhere. I'd fully support just using kWh. Presumably the other alternative has been dismissed as too ridiculous Greglocock ( talk) 01:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Article_size Quote: A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style – see A rule of thumb below.
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100 kB | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60 kB | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material) |
> 50 kB | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 40 kB | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1 kB | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded, see Wikipedia:Stub. |
What process should we use to trim the article? Discuss each section by section? Be bold? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The easy thing to do would be to make any section that refers to a main article just a summery, rather than vomiting forth of the same stuff that is in that main article. Greglocock ( talk) 22:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
What do you think of moving the electric car running costs table to its own article? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 19:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody know much about Nikola Motors, who are manufacturing an electric heavy duty truck?
http://electrek.co/2016/06/13/nikola-motor-pre-orders-worth-2-billion-electric-truck/
https://nikolamotor.com/pdfs/Nikola_Pre-Sale_June13_FINAL.pdf
I can't seem to find a WP article on them.
Stepho
talk
07:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Per wp:lead the lead should contain a summary of the information that is most important. Showing how electric car sales are rising makes the subject very interesting. I propose we add or change the lead image to include this chart. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
As agreed in previous discussions, the image in the lead should be agreed upon by consensus here. I just removed the pic below (as per MoS there should be just one except in special cases and the editor ignore the hidden message about seeking consensus here), but I believe it is a good candidate, really screaming electric car. The quality is not that great, but to be fair, let's hear what other editors have to say.-- Mariordo ( talk) 02:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Supprot as lead image. I also believe that it will be a good picture for the lead as it is showing both car and charger very clearly. The previous one was taken from very far distance. - Mar11 ( talk) 02:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Support - I've got no major problems with the suggested Rome image. And I like the perspective going into the distance. Stepho talk 03:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Support - Finally an image that really screams electric car!-- Mariordo ( talk) 04:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thought this was interesting. The world's fastest electric car (as of July 2016) is a heavily customised Enfield 8000 from the 1970s. http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/07/the-flux-capacitor-is-now-the-worlds-fastest-street-legal-electric-car/ Stepho talk 03:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps(as is already in use in the nation of South Korea Several miles devoted to Eletricrified Roads recharging Electric vehichles since 2013!) Several mile sof Freeway/turnpike could be devoted to recharging EVS as they run on same? This would certainly improve range of a Electric Vehicle! The E>R>A founded this year 2016 to promote eletrified roads globally! Thanks1 Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D,D.ULC Founder,E>R>A>ELECTRIFIED ROAD ASSOCIATION. And Founder of the Global Energy Indeppendence Day(Movement Since 2005 Held every Jul.10th Birhdate of the Great Energy pioneer/inventor Nikola tesla(1856-1943) 104.34.181.144 ( talk) 21:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Even though Electric cars create less air pollution while driving, what about the creation of the battery in the car? Is the creation of the battery bad for the environment? -- Aaronmonoogan ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Charging stations may not be efficient 24/7 because their are peak hours for charging at certain hours of the day can be more costly. -- Aaronmonoogan ( talk) 08:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The use of symbols from the Systeme International (SI) is advised where applicable, also by US government, see the NIST advice on units: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/international.html http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication330e2001.pdf and of course also: /info/en/?search=International_System_of_Units#Printing_SI_symbols This means for example that in this Electric car entry kW.h is to be replaced by kWh. The base data are to be metric, with in brackets local units where relevant.
Interest in this Electric car subject is global, so local references should be avoided where possible. Value measures are in local currencies unavoidably, with the US dollar as global reference (with currency rate as link to local currencies). Where more currencies are relevant the reference should as much as possible to main currencies involved. For electric cars this would be US Dollars; Euros; Chinese Yuan (CNY, Renminbi), and maybe Japanese Yen. Norwegian Krone (highest EV density), Russian Rubles, UK Pounds and Turkish Lira would come in only in special cases, not in the Electric car entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.91.62 ( talk) 09:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
History was trimmed. I think more should be trimmed. Let us know if you think notable information should be added or feel free to trim further. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
German inventor Andreas Flocken should be mentioned in History of electric car. LarasTasche ( talk) 15:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
History jumps from 1888 to the 1990s? Was there NOTHING notable in between? What about GM's electric car that caused all that drama? And why would anyone consider an 1888 car to be the first "real" electric car if there was a practical production model in 1884?
Steve8394 (
talk)
17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Electric car. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Electric car. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/cit-sum-com-542_en.pdfCitizens'{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.pikeresearch.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NEV-11-Executive-Summary.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
What do you think about creating a separate article with that info and just keeping the highlights? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 13:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
"Electric cars by country" section is long. What do you think of trimming it down to one paragraph and one chart at left? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 16:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, thanks, Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 01:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we should condense the different battery options of the same models into one entry and just use the range from the most basic to the most advanced option. Right now we have 2 entries about the BMW i3, 2 about the Fiat 500e, 2 about the Nissan Leaf, 7(!) about the Tesla Model S, and 2 about the Tesla Model X.
With all the new EV models and versions being released within the next year, listing every single option for every single model will make the table become extremely cluttered.
My proposal is to condense the table like this (using the example of the BMW i3):
|- style="text-align:center;"
| style="text-align:left;" |
BMW i3 (60
A·h)
[1]
[2] to (94
A·h)
[1] || 2014/15/16/17 ||124 mpg-e (60A)
(27 kW·h/100 mi
16.9 kW⋅h/100 km) to 118 mpg-e (94A)
(29 kW·h/100 mi
17.7 kW⋅h/100 km) || 137 mpg-e (60A)
(25 kW·h/100 mi
15.3 kW⋅h/100 km) to 129 mpg-e (90A)
(16.2 kW⋅h/100 km) ||111 mpg-e (60A)
(30 kW·h/100 mi
18.9 kW⋅h/100 km) to 106 mpg-e (90A)
(19.8 kW⋅h/100 km) || $0.88 (60A) - $0.94 (90A) || $550 || style="text-align:left;" | (1) (3) (4) (5)
That would shrink the list from 31 to 16 entries. Over the next 1-2 years, there will be at least 30 new models released. Listing every option for every model would mean the list will grow to over 100 entries very quickly, and I find it too cluttered as it is already. I'll also post this suggestion over to the template talk page, but even if it wouldn't be changed there, I feel like it should be condensed here at least.
Sarrotrkux ( talk) 22:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Please see Templates for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 5#Template:Comparison electric car efficiency. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
This article has a pattern of giving excessive detail about the sources cited, and repetitively referring to the source in the text. WP:INTEXT citations are appropriate primarily when citing opinions or controversial ideas. Most of this article is citing reputable studies (and if they're not so reputable, delete them), which merely need to be footnoted without going on and on about who the source is. Constantly inserting "According to the findings..." and other such tics only pad the word count. Example:
A study conducted at the Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS), at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) published in 2014 found that many car dealers are less than enthusiastic about plug-in vehicles. ITS conducted 43 interviews with six automakers and 20 new car dealers selling plug-in vehicles in California's major metro markets. The study also analyzed national and state-level J.D. Power 2013 Sales Satisfaction Index (SSI) study data on customer satisfaction with new car dealerships and Tesla retail stores. The researchers found that buyers of plug-in electric vehicles were significantly less satisfied and rated the dealer purchase experience much lower than buyers of non-premium conventional cars. According to the findings, plug-in buyers expect more from dealers than conventional buyers, including product knowledge and support that extends beyond traditional offerings. [3] [4]
This only needs to say:
A 2014 study found many car dealers are not enthusiastic about selling plug-in vehicles. [3] [4] Surveys of buyers of plug-in electric vehicles showed they were significantly less satisfied and rated the dealer purchase experience much lower than buyers of non-premium conventional cars. Plug-in buyers expect more from dealers than conventional buyers, including product knowledge and support that extends beyond traditional offerings. [3] [4]
By my count there are at least 9 instances of this, each running one or two long paragraphs that could have their word count easily cut in half. In many of them, it isn't even necessary to say "A study found..." at all, but only to state the facts and footnote it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Electric car. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Improvement Idea: Talk about how electric cars entire economic impact could be worse for the environment as a whole because of the mining of lithium and pollution associated with creating batteries and other components in said car. TacoEditSquad ( talk) 01:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
When recharged by low-emission electrical power sources, electric vehicles can reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to IC engines.
No working economist with a brain believes this statement, as written.
The Canadian government used to assure Canadians that none of our Candu tritium was exported to the U.S. nuclear program. Sort of. It worked like this: the Americans supplied all their non-nuclear needs with Canadian tritium, and then diverted almost the whole of their own tritium production into their nuclear weapons stockpile.
No enablement here. What a crock. But of course, these assurances were an entirely bogus enterprise to begin with. It's just not possible to draw these kinds of lines in a complex, fungible economy.
There's a similar fallacy at the poker table. Some players look at the pot and say "I've got ten of my chips in there, I've got to win them back." Wrong. The pot has 30 chips, and if you think you can invest 10 more chips to win the pot (now 40 chips large) with 25% odds (or better) you should consider doing so. The history of the chips already in the pot has no mathematical relevance, it's just weird magical thinking (which, unhappily, tends to correlate with losing your shirt).
If aggregate electric car demand triggers an increased marginal investment into renewal generation infrastructure then and only then do electric cars displace emissions.
Everything else about this story is a form of greenwashing (with clean Canadian tritium, and not that dirty American stuff).
I'm not going to change this myself, because I'm hot under the collar. Please consider this my nomination for the next editor to wade in. — MaxEnt 16:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Worse, nearly every electric car, motorcycle, or other new green technology company is built on a confidence model. They routinely ask for customers to put down thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in deposits for vaporware vehicles, often years ahead of time. That requires maintaining a near-religious level of enthusiasm among electric car optimists. There is a great deal of money at stake in servicing this particular point of view, while letting people off the hook for seriously thinking about changing their lifestyle.
So this should be written in a way that attributes these claims more directly to the advocates and marketing for electric cars, and acknowledges that there is an industry with a product to sell and a lot of capital at risk if it doesn't sell. When you bring up Norway or whatever, you have to make clear how difficult it would be to scale that up to the rest of the world, particularly the US, which is orders of magnitude more car-centric than the UK or Norway, and has cities that are orders of magnitude less dense than anywhere in Europe. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
References
Please seek consensus here for removing almost all content regarding sales of electric cars. Since this tecnology is in the early stages of adoption, I believe the stats are relevant and deserve to be included in the article, this is NOT promotional as you claim. BEV prices are still higher than ICE vehicles, this is why price and sales are relevant now.-- Mariordo ( talk) 04:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems you missed the part of WP:NOCATALOG that I transcribed as follows in bold: An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention...
Finally, for your information, I did improve and expand (or was the main editor) to a total of 12 articles and went through their review to achieve Good Article rating, most related to green cars and sustainable mobility, with no questioning of any of the reviewers of your issues/concerns about pricing and sales stats, much less your narrow interpretation of WP:NOTCATALOG (see the reviews for Congestion pricing, Flexible-fuel vehicle, Plug-in electric vehicle, Ethanol fuel in Brazil, Indirect land use change impacts of biofuels, History of ethanol fuel in Brazil, Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil, Mitsubishi i MiEV, Nissan Leaf, Chevrolet Volt, Electric vehicle warning sounds, and Capital Bikeshare.) Inevitably as time goes by, the quality of some of these articles has deteriorated, particularly when there is a lot of traffic/editors or as material gets dated. But your approach of deleting content is not constructive, for a good reason most of these articles have kept their GA ratings. And please, do not start multiple discussions as your are doing now with Nissan Leaf (you already got it demoted of its GA status instead of trying to fix it). Let's finish the discussion here first, and above all, let's here what other editors have to say and reach consensus. I did not address your systematic tagging of these issues (regardlesss of me being the main contributor) because I am here to add content, to add value, not to waste my time arguing, but your complete removal of the above mentioned section was too much, as well as the poor state in which the electric car use by country was left. Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 05:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
TLDR the main problem with the EV articles is WP:OWN by Mariordo. Specifically in this case it seems odd to have exhaustive lists of specific vehicles which could be handled by a category. Unless that list is complete then how do you decide which vehicles are on it? You'd have to have an RS for the selection criteria. As to prices themselves, they vary by market and with the amount of subsidy. So you'd need to include the selling price in each market. Which is starting to sound very absurd. Perhaps split sales and prices off into a new article? Greglocock ( talk) 19:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:OWN is a problem. I hate to delete such large quantities of writing that Mariordo has done. It's not a good thing to delete so much of anyone's work. But it doesn't belong to Mariordo, and it never should have been written at such length in the first place. The redundancy across articles is far out of bounds. WP:Summary style encourages some repetition, to give readers the gist of the main article, but not repeat paragraph after paragraph of the same excruciating detail. And the fact that we have these EV articles that are two, three, four, even five times longer than articles about the Ford Model T, or Mustang, or Chevrolet Corvette, or Jeep CJ or Volkswagen Beetle. Highly significant car lines that were in production for decades, yet an EV that has been made for only a copule years is FIVE times longer? Something is wrong there. Right? Can you not see that? -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Once you get into the weeds of the price of a gallon fuel and a kwh of electricity in the US and the UK and France and Sweden you've gone down the wrong rabbit hole. Broad generalities. Not specifics, unless a specific price is exceptional, such a record high or record low. The rapidly falling price of the Model T is a great example: when the price dropped below the average price of a motorcycle, the US motorcycle industry contracted. That's a far cry from the precise cost of ownership of a Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S. History might judge that one of these price points was historically significant, as with the Model T, but in the present day, all we have is a pile of raw data and a lot of salesmen trying to move cars. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, the article did not mention fuel cell vehicles at all. I added a short text on the introduction, but the rest of the article describes exclusively battery electric cars. Can you help to fix this? -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason for all this is WP:Summary style. Articles should be structured in a hierarchy of topic and sub-topic. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't dispute that all of the EV and alt-fuel vehicle article are kind of a dumpster fire of poor organization and rampant redundancy, and they will take years to sort out. But the first step is to make it more rational, not to cling to the irrational structure to the bitter end. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 04:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Lets look at the current articles on the subject
There is a lot of duplication and the whole topic could do with a clean up. -- Salix alba ( talk): 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It’s easy to get overwhelmed trying to fix everything at once. Remember that perfection is not required, and it’s ok if the process gets messy. I’d suggest:
It’s a lot to do so try to focus and not worry about the big picture too much. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 17:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
"Unlike gasoline-powered vehicles, the electric ones were less fast"
This is not correct.
In 1898 the world speed record for a car was in an electric car that went 65.79 mph (105.88 km/h). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.121.12 ( talk) 14:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)