Feel free to edit away. Even the title may change. The primary focus (for me) of this article is showing how the decade of the 1950s fundamentally change the American automotive industry and became ingrained into the American Culture in a very unique way. Arguably, it was one of the most important decades in auto history due to both the innovations that were later built upon, the previous innovations that finally took hold, the radical increase in the numbers of cars on the road, the new highway system, and the suburbanization of America. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER19:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The article suffers a little from TMI at this stage, and I'm still working on "facts", which can be trimmed before the final version. Anyone editing for now, I would suggest commenting out sections if you really think it doesn't belong, so it is easy to put back in if needed. I've ordered a few more books for my collection as well, so I expect sourcing to get broader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm open for suggestion for an article title. I'm not sure if the present title, American automobile culture of the 1950s is the best option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
While I understand the importance of Route 66 during the era, the caption is about the interstate system, I think it is either the wrong shield or the caption should focus on Route 66 or the US highway network. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also moved the image to the right per WP:IMAGELOCATION, which says that you shouldn't have images on the left when directly under the section heading. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- To Malleus and all, I appreciate. There are so many important details that I've just not learned yet, so by all means, edit away. The history is always there if I were to disagree, but I'm quite agreeable to having others help turn a lump of coal into a finished diamond. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Per Malleus's advice, I've moved the article to "1950's American automobile culture". Of course, discussion is welcome on this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've replaced the 66 sign, and actually found a MUCH better image in the process, the 1955 original interstate layout map. Much more fitting for that section of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You'll want to lose the greengrocer's apostrophe from the title before launching this into mainspace. -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a greengrocer's apostrophe, it's correct. As in "American automobile culture of the 1950s". A redirect from the incorrect "1950s American automobile culture" would be good as well though.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I took out the apostrophe only because that seems to be the most commonly used way to do articles here, searching 1950s compared to 1950's article titles.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused, per Malleus's "the decade owns" comment on his page, which does makes more sense.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apostrophe is back in. It can be debated later, but I think Malleus is correct.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Aargh! It's a greengrocer. See
WP:DECADE. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Have you read what Fowler has to say about what he calls possessive puzzles?
Malleus
Fatuorum 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I haven't. Even if it was a possessive (and such isn't Wikipedia's style) it'd have to be "1950s' American automobile culture". DECADE is clear that apostrophes aren't used in decades, and there are many thousands of articles whose names reflect this usage. We use "1950's" to mean "of the year 1950", but never to show a decade. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a possessive, and Fowler would agree with you that it should be "1950s'", a point I conceded earlier to Ryan Vesey on my talk page. But I have a suspicion that when the non-culture stuff is stripped out it'll become obvious that the scope of this article should be American automobile culture in general, not just the 1950s, and so I think this naming issue will become irrelevant in due course. Malleus Fatuorum 06:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- On reflection I'm not so sure about the scoping of this article; it may well make sense to focus on the 1950s, depending on what's available in the general literature.
Malleus
Fatuorum 06:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a lovely article, and its future quality depends on defining the scope. The 1950s were certainly a golden age in American car culture and it may make sense to broaden it into a more general summary of this part of Ameican culture. As you say, it depends on the sources. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have already broadened the scope somewhat by including events before the 1950s that become popular primarily in the 50s, ie: drive-in theater, putting the center of the cultural changes in the 1950s, which I think makes sense and arguably, that decade was the most influential. But I'm not opposed to broadening the subject to cover the general subject of how the automobile change American culture as a generic subject matter. That is arguably a larger and more comprehensive article and will require work. In some ways, it would be easier, as it would allow some of the "technology" features that had a cultural impact, such as "cruise control", to have a more comprehensive section, similar to what I've already done, with it covering the invention in the 1700s, all the way to the current implementation, which traces its roots to a 1945 patent and its first installation in a 1958 Imperial, and (not currently included) its ubiquitous use as a gasoline saving device in the 1970s forward. We are in no hurry, but I'm on the fence as to which way to define the scope.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would also add that many of our current supporting/linked articles are virtually worthless for building this article, due to a severe lack of sources. Perhaps this could be helpful to get those articles up to a better quality level once completed, as I've had to build what we have here virtually from scratch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have already broadened the scope somewhat by including events before the 1950s that become popular primarily in the 50s, ie: drive-in theater, putting the center of the cultural changes in the 1950s, which I think makes sense and arguably, that decade was the most influential. But I'm not opposed to broadening the subject to cover the general subject of how the automobile change American culture as a generic subject matter. That is arguably a larger and more comprehensive article and will require work. In some ways, it would be easier, as it would allow some of the "technology" features that had a cultural impact, such as "cruise control", to have a more comprehensive section, similar to what I've already done, with it covering the invention in the 1700s, all the way to the current implementation, which traces its roots to a 1945 patent and its first installation in a 1958 Imperial, and (not currently included) its ubiquitous use as a gasoline saving device in the 1970s forward. We are in no hurry, but I'm on the fence as to which way to define the scope.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a lovely article, and its future quality depends on defining the scope. The 1950s were certainly a golden age in American car culture and it may make sense to broaden it into a more general summary of this part of Ameican culture. As you say, it depends on the sources. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I haven't. Even if it was a possessive (and such isn't Wikipedia's style) it'd have to be "1950s' American automobile culture". DECADE is clear that apostrophes aren't used in decades, and there are many thousands of articles whose names reflect this usage. We use "1950's" to mean "of the year 1950", but never to show a decade. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Have you read what Fowler has to say about what he calls possessive puzzles?
Malleus
Fatuorum 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Aargh! It's a greengrocer. See
WP:DECADE. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apostrophe is back in. It can be debated later, but I think Malleus is correct.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused, per Malleus's "the decade owns" comment on his page, which does makes more sense.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I took out the apostrophe only because that seems to be the most commonly used way to do articles here, searching 1950s compared to 1950's article titles.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that "1950s'" is possessive for the 1950s decade, but, is possessive really necessary? Why can't "1950s" be a descriptor (that carries possessive implication!?) as in these articles: 1920s Berlin, 1960s Sicilian Mafia trials, 1970s energy crisis, 1990s UK local government reform, and 2000s commodities boom? (In fact I can't find an example on WP of title starting with a plural possessive decade like "1950s'"; maybe I don't know how to search it correctly.) If the article titles listed are okay, and it's true the apostrophe possessive isn't really needed and a descriptor can do the job, then IMO "1950s American auto[...]" is simpler and less fussy-looking. (I'm late chiming in on this, sorry.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Because 1950s is a plural. The fact that someone has misnamed
1920s Berlin is neither here nor there. Would you equally argue for "childrens clothes" as opposed to "childrens' clothes"? What's obviously throwing people here is the idea of numbers being possessive, but in what sense are numbers different when they're referring to years or decades?
Malleus
Fatuorum 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, the one thing with dates is that they often act as adjectives. 1916 college football season is an example. I doubt that 1950s' American automobile culture is incorrect, but I also think 1950s American automobile culture is correct. One is making 1950s possessive and owning the American automobile culture, the other is making 1950s an adjective and describing the American automobile culture. Ryan Vesey 02:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Because 1950s is a plural. The fact that someone has misnamed
1920s Berlin is neither here nor there. Would you equally argue for "childrens clothes" as opposed to "childrens' clothes"? What's obviously throwing people here is the idea of numbers being possessive, but in what sense are numbers different when they're referring to years or decades?
Malleus
Fatuorum 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a whack at the lead and it focused my mind on what was troubling me a little bit about this article, which is that it has a tendency to drift away from its putative subject. The lead ends with this sentence: "Innovations such as push-button automatic transmissions also came into production". What exactly has that to do with culture? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the more I read this article the more convinced I am that it's actually two articles smashed together: one on culture and the other on 1950s' automotive technology. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- That was my fear as well, which is why I've not rushed to publish, and why I created the poorly named
User:Dennis Brown/Articles/American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s, as a place to dump off interesting technology that doesn't directly affect culture. The focus should be on cultural changes as well as innovations that are common place today (automatics, which are more common in the US than elsewhere, which is a cultural issue) and such. I think I've done a better job of researching than assembling, I will freely admit. Feel free to cut and paste or chop altogether, my feeling won't be hurt. If all else fails and you don't want to lose the bits forever, you can dump the passages on the talk page of that other article and I can deal with them later. But I agree that there is some drift, hence why I need the objective help.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I suggest we do is to peel off the technical stuff into a 1950s' automobiles article or whatever provisional name we choose, and then see what we're left with for the cultural stuff such as drive-in movie theatres. It's obvious to me that you've written two articles here, so you should be aiming for two DYKs, two GAs ... ;-)
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It started as one, I quickly realized it was really two, which is why I started that second one, so yes, that is exactly what happened. This is what you get when you work with a rookie editor ;)
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was once a rookie editor myself, and I got treated pretty roughly. Which goes some way to explaining why I now tend to be rather generous to rookie editors, despite my bad press. Not that I'm saying you're a rookie editor of course, but bitter experience has taught me a great deal about what's expected at FA/GA, and it's way more than most editors are prepared for. So shall I hack away and see what we're left with?
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, please do. One of the benefits of being an autodidact student of writing and having grey hair is that you aren't afraid to be wrong. Seriously, I have no ego about anything I have written. What I have is a desire to simply play a part in creating a really interesting, fun and highly readable article about a very cool period of time that was very influential in American culture. My part was getting it started, providing a tremendous amount of raw material and research, and a basic direction. You can't offend me by making it better. There is still much I would like to add as well, but I recognize that the structure is problematic. Fixing that will make it easier for me to add more material that is relevant. Again, just dump it on the talk page of that second article for use there later, if you aren't sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was once a rookie editor myself, and I got treated pretty roughly. Which goes some way to explaining why I now tend to be rather generous to rookie editors, despite my bad press. Not that I'm saying you're a rookie editor of course, but bitter experience has taught me a great deal about what's expected at FA/GA, and it's way more than most editors are prepared for. So shall I hack away and see what we're left with?
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It started as one, I quickly realized it was really two, which is why I started that second one, so yes, that is exactly what happened. This is what you get when you work with a rookie editor ;)
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I suggest we do is to peel off the technical stuff into a 1950s' automobiles article or whatever provisional name we choose, and then see what we're left with for the cultural stuff such as drive-in movie theatres. It's obvious to me that you've written two articles here, so you should be aiming for two DYKs, two GAs ... ;-)
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I haven't worked in yet that might be worth mentioning is that in the 1950s, you could by a Crosley in a hardware store, and an Allstate (automobile) at Sears. That ended in the 1950s. Dealers were shy of the smaller dealers as sales increased, which pinched the smaller makers, forcing them to merge or go out of business, leading to the big three. Need to get some direct cites for that, but the idea that you could buy a lawnmower, a pair of slacks, and a car in the same store, or a hammer and a car, is an interesting piece of cultural info, I think. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to edit away. Even the title may change. The primary focus (for me) of this article is showing how the decade of the 1950s fundamentally change the American automotive industry and became ingrained into the American Culture in a very unique way. Arguably, it was one of the most important decades in auto history due to both the innovations that were later built upon, the previous innovations that finally took hold, the radical increase in the numbers of cars on the road, the new highway system, and the suburbanization of America. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER19:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The article suffers a little from TMI at this stage, and I'm still working on "facts", which can be trimmed before the final version. Anyone editing for now, I would suggest commenting out sections if you really think it doesn't belong, so it is easy to put back in if needed. I've ordered a few more books for my collection as well, so I expect sourcing to get broader. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm open for suggestion for an article title. I'm not sure if the present title, American automobile culture of the 1950s is the best option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
While I understand the importance of Route 66 during the era, the caption is about the interstate system, I think it is either the wrong shield or the caption should focus on Route 66 or the US highway network. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I also moved the image to the right per WP:IMAGELOCATION, which says that you shouldn't have images on the left when directly under the section heading. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- To Malleus and all, I appreciate. There are so many important details that I've just not learned yet, so by all means, edit away. The history is always there if I were to disagree, but I'm quite agreeable to having others help turn a lump of coal into a finished diamond. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Per Malleus's advice, I've moved the article to "1950's American automobile culture". Of course, discussion is welcome on this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've replaced the 66 sign, and actually found a MUCH better image in the process, the 1955 original interstate layout map. Much more fitting for that section of the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You'll want to lose the greengrocer's apostrophe from the title before launching this into mainspace. -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a greengrocer's apostrophe, it's correct. As in "American automobile culture of the 1950s". A redirect from the incorrect "1950s American automobile culture" would be good as well though.
Malleus
Fatuorum 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I took out the apostrophe only because that seems to be the most commonly used way to do articles here, searching 1950s compared to 1950's article titles.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused, per Malleus's "the decade owns" comment on his page, which does makes more sense.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apostrophe is back in. It can be debated later, but I think Malleus is correct.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Aargh! It's a greengrocer. See
WP:DECADE. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Have you read what Fowler has to say about what he calls possessive puzzles?
Malleus
Fatuorum 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I haven't. Even if it was a possessive (and such isn't Wikipedia's style) it'd have to be "1950s' American automobile culture". DECADE is clear that apostrophes aren't used in decades, and there are many thousands of articles whose names reflect this usage. We use "1950's" to mean "of the year 1950", but never to show a decade. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is a possessive, and Fowler would agree with you that it should be "1950s'", a point I conceded earlier to Ryan Vesey on my talk page. But I have a suspicion that when the non-culture stuff is stripped out it'll become obvious that the scope of this article should be American automobile culture in general, not just the 1950s, and so I think this naming issue will become irrelevant in due course. Malleus Fatuorum 06:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- On reflection I'm not so sure about the scoping of this article; it may well make sense to focus on the 1950s, depending on what's available in the general literature.
Malleus
Fatuorum 06:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a lovely article, and its future quality depends on defining the scope. The 1950s were certainly a golden age in American car culture and it may make sense to broaden it into a more general summary of this part of Ameican culture. As you say, it depends on the sources. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have already broadened the scope somewhat by including events before the 1950s that become popular primarily in the 50s, ie: drive-in theater, putting the center of the cultural changes in the 1950s, which I think makes sense and arguably, that decade was the most influential. But I'm not opposed to broadening the subject to cover the general subject of how the automobile change American culture as a generic subject matter. That is arguably a larger and more comprehensive article and will require work. In some ways, it would be easier, as it would allow some of the "technology" features that had a cultural impact, such as "cruise control", to have a more comprehensive section, similar to what I've already done, with it covering the invention in the 1700s, all the way to the current implementation, which traces its roots to a 1945 patent and its first installation in a 1958 Imperial, and (not currently included) its ubiquitous use as a gasoline saving device in the 1970s forward. We are in no hurry, but I'm on the fence as to which way to define the scope.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I would also add that many of our current supporting/linked articles are virtually worthless for building this article, due to a severe lack of sources. Perhaps this could be helpful to get those articles up to a better quality level once completed, as I've had to build what we have here virtually from scratch. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have already broadened the scope somewhat by including events before the 1950s that become popular primarily in the 50s, ie: drive-in theater, putting the center of the cultural changes in the 1950s, which I think makes sense and arguably, that decade was the most influential. But I'm not opposed to broadening the subject to cover the general subject of how the automobile change American culture as a generic subject matter. That is arguably a larger and more comprehensive article and will require work. In some ways, it would be easier, as it would allow some of the "technology" features that had a cultural impact, such as "cruise control", to have a more comprehensive section, similar to what I've already done, with it covering the invention in the 1700s, all the way to the current implementation, which traces its roots to a 1945 patent and its first installation in a 1958 Imperial, and (not currently included) its ubiquitous use as a gasoline saving device in the 1970s forward. We are in no hurry, but I'm on the fence as to which way to define the scope.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's a lovely article, and its future quality depends on defining the scope. The 1950s were certainly a golden age in American car culture and it may make sense to broaden it into a more general summary of this part of Ameican culture. As you say, it depends on the sources. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, I haven't. Even if it was a possessive (and such isn't Wikipedia's style) it'd have to be "1950s' American automobile culture". DECADE is clear that apostrophes aren't used in decades, and there are many thousands of articles whose names reflect this usage. We use "1950's" to mean "of the year 1950", but never to show a decade. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, it's not. Have you read what Fowler has to say about what he calls possessive puzzles?
Malleus
Fatuorum 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Aargh! It's a greengrocer. See
WP:DECADE. --
MarchOrDie (
talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apostrophe is back in. It can be debated later, but I think Malleus is correct.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm confused, per Malleus's "the decade owns" comment on his page, which does makes more sense.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I took out the apostrophe only because that seems to be the most commonly used way to do articles here, searching 1950s compared to 1950's article titles.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that "1950s'" is possessive for the 1950s decade, but, is possessive really necessary? Why can't "1950s" be a descriptor (that carries possessive implication!?) as in these articles: 1920s Berlin, 1960s Sicilian Mafia trials, 1970s energy crisis, 1990s UK local government reform, and 2000s commodities boom? (In fact I can't find an example on WP of title starting with a plural possessive decade like "1950s'"; maybe I don't know how to search it correctly.) If the article titles listed are okay, and it's true the apostrophe possessive isn't really needed and a descriptor can do the job, then IMO "1950s American auto[...]" is simpler and less fussy-looking. (I'm late chiming in on this, sorry.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Because 1950s is a plural. The fact that someone has misnamed
1920s Berlin is neither here nor there. Would you equally argue for "childrens clothes" as opposed to "childrens' clothes"? What's obviously throwing people here is the idea of numbers being possessive, but in what sense are numbers different when they're referring to years or decades?
Malleus
Fatuorum 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, the one thing with dates is that they often act as adjectives. 1916 college football season is an example. I doubt that 1950s' American automobile culture is incorrect, but I also think 1950s American automobile culture is correct. One is making 1950s possessive and owning the American automobile culture, the other is making 1950s an adjective and describing the American automobile culture. Ryan Vesey 02:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Because 1950s is a plural. The fact that someone has misnamed
1920s Berlin is neither here nor there. Would you equally argue for "childrens clothes" as opposed to "childrens' clothes"? What's obviously throwing people here is the idea of numbers being possessive, but in what sense are numbers different when they're referring to years or decades?
Malleus
Fatuorum 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a whack at the lead and it focused my mind on what was troubling me a little bit about this article, which is that it has a tendency to drift away from its putative subject. The lead ends with this sentence: "Innovations such as push-button automatic transmissions also came into production". What exactly has that to do with culture? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the more I read this article the more convinced I am that it's actually two articles smashed together: one on culture and the other on 1950s' automotive technology. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- That was my fear as well, which is why I've not rushed to publish, and why I created the poorly named
User:Dennis Brown/Articles/American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s, as a place to dump off interesting technology that doesn't directly affect culture. The focus should be on cultural changes as well as innovations that are common place today (automatics, which are more common in the US than elsewhere, which is a cultural issue) and such. I think I've done a better job of researching than assembling, I will freely admit. Feel free to cut and paste or chop altogether, my feeling won't be hurt. If all else fails and you don't want to lose the bits forever, you can dump the passages on the talk page of that other article and I can deal with them later. But I agree that there is some drift, hence why I need the objective help.
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 00:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I suggest we do is to peel off the technical stuff into a 1950s' automobiles article or whatever provisional name we choose, and then see what we're left with for the cultural stuff such as drive-in movie theatres. It's obvious to me that you've written two articles here, so you should be aiming for two DYKs, two GAs ... ;-)
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It started as one, I quickly realized it was really two, which is why I started that second one, so yes, that is exactly what happened. This is what you get when you work with a rookie editor ;)
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was once a rookie editor myself, and I got treated pretty roughly. Which goes some way to explaining why I now tend to be rather generous to rookie editors, despite my bad press. Not that I'm saying you're a rookie editor of course, but bitter experience has taught me a great deal about what's expected at FA/GA, and it's way more than most editors are prepared for. So shall I hack away and see what we're left with?
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, please do. One of the benefits of being an autodidact student of writing and having grey hair is that you aren't afraid to be wrong. Seriously, I have no ego about anything I have written. What I have is a desire to simply play a part in creating a really interesting, fun and highly readable article about a very cool period of time that was very influential in American culture. My part was getting it started, providing a tremendous amount of raw material and research, and a basic direction. You can't offend me by making it better. There is still much I would like to add as well, but I recognize that the structure is problematic. Fixing that will make it easier for me to add more material that is relevant. Again, just dump it on the talk page of that second article for use there later, if you aren't sure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was once a rookie editor myself, and I got treated pretty roughly. Which goes some way to explaining why I now tend to be rather generous to rookie editors, despite my bad press. Not that I'm saying you're a rookie editor of course, but bitter experience has taught me a great deal about what's expected at FA/GA, and it's way more than most editors are prepared for. So shall I hack away and see what we're left with?
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- It started as one, I quickly realized it was really two, which is why I started that second one, so yes, that is exactly what happened. This is what you get when you work with a rookie editor ;)
Dennis Brown -
2¢
©
Join WER 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I suggest we do is to peel off the technical stuff into a 1950s' automobiles article or whatever provisional name we choose, and then see what we're left with for the cultural stuff such as drive-in movie theatres. It's obvious to me that you've written two articles here, so you should be aiming for two DYKs, two GAs ... ;-)
Malleus
Fatuorum 00:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- One thing I haven't worked in yet that might be worth mentioning is that in the 1950s, you could by a Crosley in a hardware store, and an Allstate (automobile) at Sears. That ended in the 1950s. Dealers were shy of the smaller dealers as sales increased, which pinched the smaller makers, forcing them to merge or go out of business, leading to the big three. Need to get some direct cites for that, but the idea that you could buy a lawnmower, a pair of slacks, and a car in the same store, or a hammer and a car, is an interesting piece of cultural info, I think. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)