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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Everyone talks about how electric cars are great for the environment, but in reality they are probably worse. They create more pollution in manufacturing, due to the metals needed for the battery, the electricity they run on comes from, for the most part, coal, natural gas and nuclear power (wind power is inefficient, hydroelectric dams are expensive, solar power is both), and when being scrapped, the batteries must be disposed of, and that creates a lot of pollution. Not that CO2 output matters, because it is necessary for life on earth and has played a minor cause in global warming (most of it is natural, and climate predictions are unreliable). I will get sources soon. 2601:245:C101:6BCC:7519:86DA:773F:598B ( talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This article used to have the answer to this concern, but during recent trimming it was removed. They are NOT worse than ICEs, you can find the correct and comprehensive answer properly supported by reliable sources here: Environmental aspects of the electric car.-- Mariordo ( talk) 12:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thought you might find the following interesting. Not sure if it belongs in the article. BMW in the accompanying video says it is spending $7 billion on electrification R&D and it is its biggest investment ever. 3 minutes into the video.
Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 15:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a bit informal, I am fairly new to Wikipedia still, we need to revamp this page and a lot to contain information of what most people will experience with an electric car, specifically most people will be seeing the Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf, and soon likely the I-Pace, we need to make sure we don't show too many luxury cars or city cars, just as we don't show racecars and citycars all over the pages for I.C.E cars. They obviously should still be included, just not strewn all over the place. On top of that the pages for pricing appears to be outdated, among other outdates strings of line that end up in an almost argument with itself of things like "This is a disadvantage of EV technology, BUT it's better now/SOME ones are...." might just be a nitpick tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordLimaBean ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Re: this edit to restore images of cars that look more electric-y because of 1) goofy design, and 2) charging cable that is thin and coiled rather than a thick black tube that could be mistaken for a fuel hose. It's true that for the last 80-some years, electric cars have always looked goofy, for no particular reason. But that changed in the mid-90s, and so for the last 20 to 25 years, electric cars have looked pretty much like any other car. A lead image of a car that is more or less indiscinguisable from combustion engine cars is a fairly accurate representation of reality.
Even so, File:Tesla Model S at a Supercharger station.jpeg and File:2018-03-06 Geneva Motor Show 2441.JPG are both examples of ridiculously expensive luxury cars. You could argue that Teslas are the most well known and influential electric cars today, but Jaguar? Beyond obscure, and it doesn't even exist. I'd probably use the Tesla and maybe the Nissan Leaf, since it seems to be the top electric car globally. Or whichever car has the most total numbers in service now. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I favor the Leaf if they really are the most common electric, even though they are hideously ugly, and a Tesla because our sources give them loads of coverage, and they are verifiably very influential, even if few of them are on the road. And I think Tesla is a lot of hype and media whoring, and they don't keep their promises. Neither the Leaf or the Tesla is my favorite. I find Tesla interesting, but not likable. A car I like would be a Mini, but I don't favor that for the lead.
If some other cars qualify as very common or highly covered by reliable sources, I'd favor those instead. Both cars shoulnd't be the same color; that looks odd. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
For reference, here are the previous discussions:
From MOS:LEADIMAGE, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover — to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." (my underlining) The lead is special - it lets the reader know what is unique about this topic. What is the point of a reader seeing a picture of just another car as the first image of the article? It's a perfectly valid point that they are mainstream and look just like other cars but there are plenty of example images scattered through the article. It is certainly not the main point of the article. The main point of the article is that they are electric and therefore the lead image must reflect this.
Referring to small electric cars as "goofy", weird, oddball or out of left field is showing a cultural bias. In Europe, these are perfectly normal small cars that don't look out of place at all - they're just not common in the US (Dennis) or Australia (HiLo48).
However, we can try to pick an image that is agreeable across the world. I've shown a few more above that emphasis the electric nature of cars. Most of these new images are of cars that can be seen on roads in Europe, N.America, Australia and many other countries. Most of these new images show this electric nature through the use of a charging cable that doesn't look like a petrol pump hose. I have a preference for the cars charging in San Francisco showing Prius PHEV's but the others also get the point across. Would anybody like to comment on these images? Stepho talk 12:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
How about the electric car icon shown above? The other ev images could be used throughout the article. The icon is both obvious and neutral. Springee ( talk) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I will be leaving this conversation until further notice per: WP:DROPSTICK, now let's get onto some more urgent matters with this page, there is a lot to be done. LordLimaBean ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Second, what is special about electric cars in the 21st century is that they are normal cars. They have more or less the same usability, performance, range, and price of conventional cars. If a reader barely glances at this article and only gleans one fact from it, that fact should be that electric cars have entered the mainstream. A perfect visual metaphor to convey that is a picture of one of the most commonplace electric cars around, what WP:LEADIMAGE calls "natural and appropriate representations of the topic". The guideline says it is "common" for lead images to provide visual confirmation that a reader has arrived on the right page, but it does not say the lead image must serve this purpose. Can anyone cite evidence for confusion about whether or not the found the right page as being an overriding concern? What is the use case for this? Someone trying to defuse a ticking time bomb who can't afford a split second to read the article title? It can't be for someone who doesn't read English; articles are explicitly not written to accommodate readers who don't have basic fluency in English. The MOS does explicitly encourage accommodating visually impaired readers, but does not say we have to try to communicate purely through pictures and icons. Wikipedia is fundamentally about text, not images.
I also can't imagine the use case of a person who is fluent in written English, and who is so familiar with automobiles that they would recognize a thick black hose as a fuel pump hose, yet at the same time this person doesn't have the slightest clue that a car that looks like a Tesla Model S or a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt. What country does this reader live in? What planet? How exactly are they reading Wikipedia without any access to the Internet, which will have already made them familiar with the basic fact of what typical cars look like, and giving them some general concept of the electric cars. Wikipedia is not written for The Man Who Fell to Earth.
The dominant electric car silhouette is represented by the top-selling EVs, the closely-related Nissan Leaf and Renault Zoe, and the similarly-styled BAIC e-series, the #1 EV in the world's largest EV market, China. China's #2 EV, the Chery EQ, could easily be mistaken for one of these as well. I could be easily persuaded to support an image of some other car if you were to argue that this other car is the most popular, top selling, or most commonplace car on Earth. I support whatever is the electric car that is most prevalent.
I think two lead images would look fine here, and I think it's not a bad idea for the second image to be the media darling Tesla. Tesla is not representative of the EV market as a whole, and not representative of the global car market. Even in Europe or the US, Tesla is convinced to an upper-class niche. But our sources pay a lot of attention to Tesla, partially because of publicity stunts like launching a car into space, and partially because Tesla has had a disproportionate influence on making electric cars mainstream. Since the move of EVs into the mainstream is of such great importance here, then it follows that we could use one in the lead, probably as the second image after a typical Leaf/Zoe/BAIC e-series type car. But not both in burgundy; that looks weird.
Regarding the several suggestions to use an image that puts the charging station front and center, upstaging and cropping out the car, I say that this article is about the topic of electric cars. We have an article charging station, that is about charging stations -- it's lead even has one of the images suggested here. This article is about electric cars, and the lead should be an image of a car. It's not harmful if a charging cable or station is in the image too, but it must show a car, and the whole car. Not a cropped piece of a car.
What about an icon? No. What is the use case for an icon? Someone who can't read English? Sorry, no. Not necessary. It conveys far too little information. We're not trying to pick the most dumbed-down way of saving the reader the effort of reading the words "electric car".
The examples of Africa and Demographics of Africa are simply unhelpful because they are not WP:GAs or WP:FAs. If you are going to argue by example, then you have to pick a Featured Article or Good Article, at least, to ensure that we are talking about an artilce with strong consensus favoring it. Africa has been semi-protected since 2010 for content disputes!
Most FAs are about very specific tings, because it is so hard for there to be any consensus on a broad topic or abstract concept. Of the few examples, we have Bacteria, which leads with perhaps the most commonplace, familiar example, E. coli. Cell nucleus leads with HeLa, "the oldest and most commonly used human cell line". Bird punts by using 18 different images for the lead. Wimps. We could go the Wikipedia:Imagemap route, but to me it's high-maintenance. We should be able to change the lead image of an article a couple times a year without it being a big production. But it might solve the dispute.
I would be open to following the example of other Featured Articles about topics as broad as electric car. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Having the Leaf followed by a picture of the #2 top selling EV would be just dull, and missing an opportunity to highlight an important fact about electric cars today. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
LordLimaBean, do you you have any objection to the using the image of the Leaf charging that Dennis picked out? Stepho talk 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Let's just agree with the Leaf and the Roadster for now, and later if someone has something better we can cross that bridge when we come to it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I am delighted by the photo of the Tesla at the Supercharger aka “Tesla with hose” and quite pleased to see it at the top of this article. But then, I took the picture! And to be honest, I don’t see one I like more. I’ve discussed this here before, don’t care to further, except to say the red Nissan Leaf charging is my second choice. With a grin, I !vote we leave the current photo up top. Oh, and thanks to whoever put it up there. Jusdafax ( talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are some examples of conventional looking electric cars that scream electric. Any option that seems to cover all the criteria discussed above?
No replies for 4 1/2 days. If there is no further feedback then I will put in the image of the red Leaf charging - that seemed to generate the most agreement and the least argument. Stepho talk 22:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
References
I feel I have gotten it reasonably short enough, and (hopefully) without erasing any important information, I am going to focus on updating any outdated information, I encourage other editors to do the same, as it can be hard finding up-to-date information on things such as the sales of electric vehicles, by sources not *EXTREMELY* bias towards electric vehicles. LordLimaBean ( talk) 02:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody know why the 'File:Elektro-Autos in Rom (24200438882).jpg' image has been deleted from wikicommons? The new file 'File:Car2Go Stuttgart 2012-12-05 trimmed.jpeg' is fine but I'd like to know why the old file has been wiped completely. Stepho talk 23:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The Luxgen image keeps reappearing in this article. However, this is hardly a notable commercial vehicle. It is actually a concept model. According to a 2017 article by the the Taipei Times "the automaker had failed to produce a commercially available electric vehicle, despite NT$1.6 billion in government subsidies ... The 489 cars were sold to government agencies and state-run businesses for NT$2.2 million each" (around US$72,000) Thus, this is not an ideal model to picture in this article! CZmarlin ( talk) 18:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that there has been a random Luxgen vehicle on one of the primary images for a good while now, I propose we either A) Remove it due to it being a non-notable concept vehicle (Neither high sales, nor historic impact) B) Create a Collage like was consensus on the Electric Vehicle page. (Which wouldn't be idea for the page LordLimaBean ( talk) 02:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Seeking a balance, what about two cars shown charging and another two on the road? In addition, LordLimaBean proposal has to much red, and I agree about the cable being confused with a hose, so I proposed the following option with more generic descriptions and just one Tesla (I would like two diff Tesla models in a Supercharging station, but the only one available is not good quality). For the time being, I will replace the current arrangement in the for option #6, to test the vertical mosaic, may be more editors will drop in the discussion (feel free to reverse it at any time). Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)
There are several cars more notable than the i3. Aren't half of BMW i3 sales with a gasoline engine? Isn't this article for pure EVs? https://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-us-salesproduction-numbers-rex-bev-ratio/ Update: went ahead and made the edit. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 01:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Missing from article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.239.168.6 ( talk) 12:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable comment at commons whether regen braking correct? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding "re" is totally redundant. It would be more proper to use just "charge" and "chargeable." B5429671 ( talk) 08:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I added the new section. Urbanoc said doesn't think it is a good idea. Should the section be kept, deleted or improved? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be kept and a couple of Chinese manufacturers should be added but maybe it will not be clear for a little while which will survive the shakeout and become major exporters. Perhaps BYD and BAIC. Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of good information in this article: https://www.autonews.com/future-product/era-electrification . Subscription required, but I'm able to read it anyways by looking at page source. Article claims a hundred electric vehicles are coming. Quote:
Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 05:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
"As of 2019, electric cars are less expensive to run than comparable internal combustion engine cars due to the lower cost of maintenance and energy,[48] but cost significantly more to initially buy if bought new.[49][50]" That is completely false. Some models are indeed more expensive, but if you look at the high end vehicles and compare them to actual comparable cars, they are actually quite cost competitive and far cheaper after incentives. The Model 3, for example, is very well priced in comparison to the BMW 3 series, and it dominates the EV market. B5429671 ( talk) 08:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"World's first electric car built by Victorian inventor in 1884" not so world's "first" considering and other constructors of electric cars before 1884 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.251.172 ( talk) 03:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Specifically, this sentence: "The emergence of metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) technology led to the development of modern electric road vehicles." does not seem backed up by its citation, which is simply about MOSFETs in relation to AC motor drives. In particular, most production EVs use IGBTs, with only very recent examples (e.g. Tesla Model 3) using MOSFETs. TD-Linux ( talk) 11:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake to put the BMW I3 in the lead image section. It was put there because of large sales, but if you look at the details, more than half the sales are for the version with a gas engine. Couldn't find a good reference, but here is something: https://insideevs.com/news/322094/bmw-i3-us-sales-production-by-the-numbers-rex-to-bev-ratio/ Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The update for 2019 has doubled, and would double again if we compared cars to cars, versus cars to vehicles. Didn't find a reference, but can find references from different sources that you can calculate that info. Per wp:lead we should have a summary of most important contents. That sentence was interesting in 2018, but I think it is stale and not one of the most important topics now towards later half of 2020. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 23:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Although the 1st paragraph says:
This article is about battery electric cars.
the sentence in the 2nd paragraph:
An electric car is a car which is propelled by one or more electric motors, using energy stored in rechargeable batteries.
is not true because: principally, the electric energy for an electric car can come out of a fuel cell, in real time.
Therefore I suggest to change this sentence into:
"An electric car is a car which is propelled by one or more electric motors, using electric energy.
This energy can come out of rechargeable batteries or out of a fuel cell.
Since the 1880s up to today (2020) most electric cars got their energy from rechargeable batteries"
{Of course a native English speaker may improve on my English.}
Please ping me.
Steue (
talk) 22:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle#Merger_proposal Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
When we sort this table on the "Global Annual Sales" column, the figure 120,000 appears on top or on bottom of the sorted table. This is an error but I do not find why 120,000 does not appear on the right place !
Is anybody expert on sorting tables ?
Thanks,
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Everyone talks about how electric cars are great for the environment, but in reality they are probably worse. They create more pollution in manufacturing, due to the metals needed for the battery, the electricity they run on comes from, for the most part, coal, natural gas and nuclear power (wind power is inefficient, hydroelectric dams are expensive, solar power is both), and when being scrapped, the batteries must be disposed of, and that creates a lot of pollution. Not that CO2 output matters, because it is necessary for life on earth and has played a minor cause in global warming (most of it is natural, and climate predictions are unreliable). I will get sources soon. 2601:245:C101:6BCC:7519:86DA:773F:598B ( talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This article used to have the answer to this concern, but during recent trimming it was removed. They are NOT worse than ICEs, you can find the correct and comprehensive answer properly supported by reliable sources here: Environmental aspects of the electric car.-- Mariordo ( talk) 12:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thought you might find the following interesting. Not sure if it belongs in the article. BMW in the accompanying video says it is spending $7 billion on electrification R&D and it is its biggest investment ever. 3 minutes into the video.
Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 15:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a bit informal, I am fairly new to Wikipedia still, we need to revamp this page and a lot to contain information of what most people will experience with an electric car, specifically most people will be seeing the Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf, and soon likely the I-Pace, we need to make sure we don't show too many luxury cars or city cars, just as we don't show racecars and citycars all over the pages for I.C.E cars. They obviously should still be included, just not strewn all over the place. On top of that the pages for pricing appears to be outdated, among other outdates strings of line that end up in an almost argument with itself of things like "This is a disadvantage of EV technology, BUT it's better now/SOME ones are...." might just be a nitpick tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordLimaBean ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Re: this edit to restore images of cars that look more electric-y because of 1) goofy design, and 2) charging cable that is thin and coiled rather than a thick black tube that could be mistaken for a fuel hose. It's true that for the last 80-some years, electric cars have always looked goofy, for no particular reason. But that changed in the mid-90s, and so for the last 20 to 25 years, electric cars have looked pretty much like any other car. A lead image of a car that is more or less indiscinguisable from combustion engine cars is a fairly accurate representation of reality.
Even so, File:Tesla Model S at a Supercharger station.jpeg and File:2018-03-06 Geneva Motor Show 2441.JPG are both examples of ridiculously expensive luxury cars. You could argue that Teslas are the most well known and influential electric cars today, but Jaguar? Beyond obscure, and it doesn't even exist. I'd probably use the Tesla and maybe the Nissan Leaf, since it seems to be the top electric car globally. Or whichever car has the most total numbers in service now. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I favor the Leaf if they really are the most common electric, even though they are hideously ugly, and a Tesla because our sources give them loads of coverage, and they are verifiably very influential, even if few of them are on the road. And I think Tesla is a lot of hype and media whoring, and they don't keep their promises. Neither the Leaf or the Tesla is my favorite. I find Tesla interesting, but not likable. A car I like would be a Mini, but I don't favor that for the lead.
If some other cars qualify as very common or highly covered by reliable sources, I'd favor those instead. Both cars shoulnd't be the same color; that looks odd. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 06:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
For reference, here are the previous discussions:
From MOS:LEADIMAGE, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover — to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." (my underlining) The lead is special - it lets the reader know what is unique about this topic. What is the point of a reader seeing a picture of just another car as the first image of the article? It's a perfectly valid point that they are mainstream and look just like other cars but there are plenty of example images scattered through the article. It is certainly not the main point of the article. The main point of the article is that they are electric and therefore the lead image must reflect this.
Referring to small electric cars as "goofy", weird, oddball or out of left field is showing a cultural bias. In Europe, these are perfectly normal small cars that don't look out of place at all - they're just not common in the US (Dennis) or Australia (HiLo48).
However, we can try to pick an image that is agreeable across the world. I've shown a few more above that emphasis the electric nature of cars. Most of these new images are of cars that can be seen on roads in Europe, N.America, Australia and many other countries. Most of these new images show this electric nature through the use of a charging cable that doesn't look like a petrol pump hose. I have a preference for the cars charging in San Francisco showing Prius PHEV's but the others also get the point across. Would anybody like to comment on these images? Stepho talk 12:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
How about the electric car icon shown above? The other ev images could be used throughout the article. The icon is both obvious and neutral. Springee ( talk) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I will be leaving this conversation until further notice per: WP:DROPSTICK, now let's get onto some more urgent matters with this page, there is a lot to be done. LordLimaBean ( talk) 22:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Second, what is special about electric cars in the 21st century is that they are normal cars. They have more or less the same usability, performance, range, and price of conventional cars. If a reader barely glances at this article and only gleans one fact from it, that fact should be that electric cars have entered the mainstream. A perfect visual metaphor to convey that is a picture of one of the most commonplace electric cars around, what WP:LEADIMAGE calls "natural and appropriate representations of the topic". The guideline says it is "common" for lead images to provide visual confirmation that a reader has arrived on the right page, but it does not say the lead image must serve this purpose. Can anyone cite evidence for confusion about whether or not the found the right page as being an overriding concern? What is the use case for this? Someone trying to defuse a ticking time bomb who can't afford a split second to read the article title? It can't be for someone who doesn't read English; articles are explicitly not written to accommodate readers who don't have basic fluency in English. The MOS does explicitly encourage accommodating visually impaired readers, but does not say we have to try to communicate purely through pictures and icons. Wikipedia is fundamentally about text, not images.
I also can't imagine the use case of a person who is fluent in written English, and who is so familiar with automobiles that they would recognize a thick black hose as a fuel pump hose, yet at the same time this person doesn't have the slightest clue that a car that looks like a Tesla Model S or a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt. What country does this reader live in? What planet? How exactly are they reading Wikipedia without any access to the Internet, which will have already made them familiar with the basic fact of what typical cars look like, and giving them some general concept of the electric cars. Wikipedia is not written for The Man Who Fell to Earth.
The dominant electric car silhouette is represented by the top-selling EVs, the closely-related Nissan Leaf and Renault Zoe, and the similarly-styled BAIC e-series, the #1 EV in the world's largest EV market, China. China's #2 EV, the Chery EQ, could easily be mistaken for one of these as well. I could be easily persuaded to support an image of some other car if you were to argue that this other car is the most popular, top selling, or most commonplace car on Earth. I support whatever is the electric car that is most prevalent.
I think two lead images would look fine here, and I think it's not a bad idea for the second image to be the media darling Tesla. Tesla is not representative of the EV market as a whole, and not representative of the global car market. Even in Europe or the US, Tesla is convinced to an upper-class niche. But our sources pay a lot of attention to Tesla, partially because of publicity stunts like launching a car into space, and partially because Tesla has had a disproportionate influence on making electric cars mainstream. Since the move of EVs into the mainstream is of such great importance here, then it follows that we could use one in the lead, probably as the second image after a typical Leaf/Zoe/BAIC e-series type car. But not both in burgundy; that looks weird.
Regarding the several suggestions to use an image that puts the charging station front and center, upstaging and cropping out the car, I say that this article is about the topic of electric cars. We have an article charging station, that is about charging stations -- it's lead even has one of the images suggested here. This article is about electric cars, and the lead should be an image of a car. It's not harmful if a charging cable or station is in the image too, but it must show a car, and the whole car. Not a cropped piece of a car.
What about an icon? No. What is the use case for an icon? Someone who can't read English? Sorry, no. Not necessary. It conveys far too little information. We're not trying to pick the most dumbed-down way of saving the reader the effort of reading the words "electric car".
The examples of Africa and Demographics of Africa are simply unhelpful because they are not WP:GAs or WP:FAs. If you are going to argue by example, then you have to pick a Featured Article or Good Article, at least, to ensure that we are talking about an artilce with strong consensus favoring it. Africa has been semi-protected since 2010 for content disputes!
Most FAs are about very specific tings, because it is so hard for there to be any consensus on a broad topic or abstract concept. Of the few examples, we have Bacteria, which leads with perhaps the most commonplace, familiar example, E. coli. Cell nucleus leads with HeLa, "the oldest and most commonly used human cell line". Bird punts by using 18 different images for the lead. Wimps. We could go the Wikipedia:Imagemap route, but to me it's high-maintenance. We should be able to change the lead image of an article a couple times a year without it being a big production. But it might solve the dispute.
I would be open to following the example of other Featured Articles about topics as broad as electric car. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Having the Leaf followed by a picture of the #2 top selling EV would be just dull, and missing an opportunity to highlight an important fact about electric cars today. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
LordLimaBean, do you you have any objection to the using the image of the Leaf charging that Dennis picked out? Stepho talk 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Let's just agree with the Leaf and the Roadster for now, and later if someone has something better we can cross that bridge when we come to it. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 01:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I am delighted by the photo of the Tesla at the Supercharger aka “Tesla with hose” and quite pleased to see it at the top of this article. But then, I took the picture! And to be honest, I don’t see one I like more. I’ve discussed this here before, don’t care to further, except to say the red Nissan Leaf charging is my second choice. With a grin, I !vote we leave the current photo up top. Oh, and thanks to whoever put it up there. Jusdafax ( talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are some examples of conventional looking electric cars that scream electric. Any option that seems to cover all the criteria discussed above?
No replies for 4 1/2 days. If there is no further feedback then I will put in the image of the red Leaf charging - that seemed to generate the most agreement and the least argument. Stepho talk 22:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
References
I feel I have gotten it reasonably short enough, and (hopefully) without erasing any important information, I am going to focus on updating any outdated information, I encourage other editors to do the same, as it can be hard finding up-to-date information on things such as the sales of electric vehicles, by sources not *EXTREMELY* bias towards electric vehicles. LordLimaBean ( talk) 02:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody know why the 'File:Elektro-Autos in Rom (24200438882).jpg' image has been deleted from wikicommons? The new file 'File:Car2Go Stuttgart 2012-12-05 trimmed.jpeg' is fine but I'd like to know why the old file has been wiped completely. Stepho talk 23:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The Luxgen image keeps reappearing in this article. However, this is hardly a notable commercial vehicle. It is actually a concept model. According to a 2017 article by the the Taipei Times "the automaker had failed to produce a commercially available electric vehicle, despite NT$1.6 billion in government subsidies ... The 489 cars were sold to government agencies and state-run businesses for NT$2.2 million each" (around US$72,000) Thus, this is not an ideal model to picture in this article! CZmarlin ( talk) 18:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that there has been a random Luxgen vehicle on one of the primary images for a good while now, I propose we either A) Remove it due to it being a non-notable concept vehicle (Neither high sales, nor historic impact) B) Create a Collage like was consensus on the Electric Vehicle page. (Which wouldn't be idea for the page LordLimaBean ( talk) 02:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Seeking a balance, what about two cars shown charging and another two on the road? In addition, LordLimaBean proposal has to much red, and I agree about the cable being confused with a hose, so I proposed the following option with more generic descriptions and just one Tesla (I would like two diff Tesla models in a Supercharging station, but the only one available is not good quality). For the time being, I will replace the current arrangement in the for option #6, to test the vertical mosaic, may be more editors will drop in the discussion (feel free to reverse it at any time). Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite uses generic title (
help)
There are several cars more notable than the i3. Aren't half of BMW i3 sales with a gasoline engine? Isn't this article for pure EVs? https://insideevs.com/bmw-i3-us-salesproduction-numbers-rex-bev-ratio/ Update: went ahead and made the edit. Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 01:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Missing from article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.239.168.6 ( talk) 12:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable comment at commons whether regen braking correct? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding "re" is totally redundant. It would be more proper to use just "charge" and "chargeable." B5429671 ( talk) 08:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I added the new section. Urbanoc said doesn't think it is a good idea. Should the section be kept, deleted or improved? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be kept and a couple of Chinese manufacturers should be added but maybe it will not be clear for a little while which will survive the shakeout and become major exporters. Perhaps BYD and BAIC. Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of good information in this article: https://www.autonews.com/future-product/era-electrification . Subscription required, but I'm able to read it anyways by looking at page source. Article claims a hundred electric vehicles are coming. Quote:
Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 05:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
"As of 2019, electric cars are less expensive to run than comparable internal combustion engine cars due to the lower cost of maintenance and energy,[48] but cost significantly more to initially buy if bought new.[49][50]" That is completely false. Some models are indeed more expensive, but if you look at the high end vehicles and compare them to actual comparable cars, they are actually quite cost competitive and far cheaper after incentives. The Model 3, for example, is very well priced in comparison to the BMW 3 series, and it dominates the EV market. B5429671 ( talk) 08:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
"World's first electric car built by Victorian inventor in 1884" not so world's "first" considering and other constructors of electric cars before 1884 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.251.172 ( talk) 03:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Specifically, this sentence: "The emergence of metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) technology led to the development of modern electric road vehicles." does not seem backed up by its citation, which is simply about MOSFETs in relation to AC motor drives. In particular, most production EVs use IGBTs, with only very recent examples (e.g. Tesla Model 3) using MOSFETs. TD-Linux ( talk) 11:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake to put the BMW I3 in the lead image section. It was put there because of large sales, but if you look at the details, more than half the sales are for the version with a gas engine. Couldn't find a good reference, but here is something: https://insideevs.com/news/322094/bmw-i3-us-sales-production-by-the-numbers-rex-to-bev-ratio/ Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 18:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The update for 2019 has doubled, and would double again if we compared cars to cars, versus cars to vehicles. Didn't find a reference, but can find references from different sources that you can calculate that info. Per wp:lead we should have a summary of most important contents. That sentence was interesting in 2018, but I think it is stale and not one of the most important topics now towards later half of 2020. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas ( talk) 23:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Although the 1st paragraph says:
This article is about battery electric cars.
the sentence in the 2nd paragraph:
An electric car is a car which is propelled by one or more electric motors, using energy stored in rechargeable batteries.
is not true because: principally, the electric energy for an electric car can come out of a fuel cell, in real time.
Therefore I suggest to change this sentence into:
"An electric car is a car which is propelled by one or more electric motors, using electric energy.
This energy can come out of rechargeable batteries or out of a fuel cell.
Since the 1880s up to today (2020) most electric cars got their energy from rechargeable batteries"
{Of course a native English speaker may improve on my English.}
Please ping me.
Steue (
talk) 22:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
If you are interested please discuss at Talk:Battery_electric_vehicle#Merger_proposal Chidgk1 ( talk) 06:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
When we sort this table on the "Global Annual Sales" column, the figure 120,000 appears on top or on bottom of the sorted table. This is an error but I do not find why 120,000 does not appear on the right place !
Is anybody expert on sorting tables ?
Thanks,