Talk:Automobile

Missing image Cscr-former.png Former featured article candidate

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been met you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

---

See Talk:Automobile/Archive 1 for older talk

---

Contents

1 Photos 2 Pickup Truck 3 Categorization 4 Etymology of the term 5 External links 6 Link suggestions 7 Auto Repair 8 This should be at car 9 Gallery 10 Automobile → Car 11 car/automobile population 12 Purchasing an automobile 13 alternative fuels

Photos

On the photographs, there are only American cars. Europe and Asia also produced some cars (I think quite early ;-). So if someone has some photos of non-American cars lying around at home and is willing to donate them to Wikipedia, I'd be very pleased ... --zeno 00:52, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

PS: I also miss a link to license plate (just added it)

I fear you're mistaken. The picture at the top is clearly European about 1980 or so; as the the photos at the bottom, the first five cars are American but the next two are British, the third international (the Ford Focus). There follows an Australian car, two American and a Russian. There's definitely an American bias to them, but not exclusively. There aren't any Japanese cars there, though. —Morven 05:29, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick extra comment - the selection of vehicles in the photo collection seems somwhat surreal to be honest - would it be possible to add some more historically important or iconic vehicles? In my opion, an article about cars could could use photos of cars such as the VW Beetle, Rover Mini, Citreon 2CV, Model T Ford, Willys Jeep, Land Rover, VW Golf and Jaguar E-Type. Maybe someone could add to the list? There are already some pictures available in the wikipedia for some of these (see below ), I'm sure there are more too. Plus, they would look better in historical order (IMHO). unless anyone has a reason for the current selection I shall make a start in a couple of days. akaDruid 15:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Be very careful, though, that any list of 'historically important' is not US-centric, UK-centric, Euro-centric, or whatever. It would be an easy trap to fall into. Though I guess that's what Wikipedia process is all about; if someone doesn't like it, they'll fix it.

Which brings about the question: what cars are in the international 'historically important' list? Most of yours above are probably in there, though I'd argue that the 2CV represents a long-lasting and popular dead end rather than being a vehicle that inspired many others, and that the E-Type, though famous and sexy, isn't really developmentally that big a deal. The Land Rover, though ubiquitous, started life as but a British Jeep and evolved in no shocking or landmark-making ways. Though it depends what criteria one uses, of course! I'm probably coming from a 'influential to other designs' direction in those criticisms. I don't think many would argue that the Model T, Jeep, Beetle, Mini and Golf were milestone cars, but there have to be others. —Morven 16:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My opinions are in danger of being UK-centric :) What do people think about trimming the current display too? While the Chryslers and Saturns may be nice cars in themselves, I don't know if they belong here. At the very least, I shall start by tidying it into a the order it was intended, then add some of the agreed pictures. akaDruid 09:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, done the above. Layout much better, and added photos of: Model T, Jeep, Beetle, Mini, Golf. What else? Fiat 500? I would like to see the E-type there. It was more of a milestone within the sports car market, rather than the car industry as a whole, but I think it was a major shift in design, marketing and consumer expectations. Performance and handling were miles ahead of it's time. I think we should add some more important modern cars too - maybe the Renault Espace, Smart car? Neither very attractive cars in my book, but much more influential than the existing new car photos. What about an influential SUV too? I don't much about SUVs I'm afraid. akaDruid 10:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Some thoughts at this point: Nice pictures, though I'd say that Model T is a rather unrepresentative example, being a late-model non-black version! An earlier T would be better. Also a little more cropping, that's a bit too large.

The Fiat 500 was pretty influential but not so much so as the Beetle and Mini, so it can probably be left out, though I'm open to persuasion.

As to the E-type: I have a suspicion that it was a critical point in the UK but not in the USA. Maybe an E-Type *and* an early Corvette, both rather groundbreaking in their respective markets?

You're right -- something of the people mover/minivan nature should go in, that was a major shift in the market. Either an early Chrysler minivan or an Espace, I'm not sure which preceded which but both were pretty much the same concept. Since I left Europe pre Smart Car I have no idea of its influentialness.

As to SUVs, the groundbreaking vehicles in the USA, in terms of the evolution from the mere 'Utility Vehicle' to a car replacement, are probably the Jeep Cherokee and Ford Bronco/Ford Explorer.

I suspect we need a bit more text around these pictures, and I'm wondering if we are eventually going to need to move most of them to an article like Pictorial history of the car or something of that nature. Since we seem to be arriving at the conclusion here that we should be having important historical cars here rather than just a random sampling of vehicles.

We should also ensure that any picture we move out of here gets put in the right article for what it is, too. —Morven 21:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Could we get some text around the top picture? What is it some odd layout of parking lot? Also I woul suggest that the open hood picture is not very illustrative as it shows neither the car nor the engine compartment well. Rmhermen 21:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah we should find another picture of the T, that one happened to be the best I could find that was already on the Wiki, I found it from the article.

As far as the top picture, and the open hood one, I suspect the original picture selection was just chosen arbitarily from what was available at the time, hence the need for an update. I vote for wiping the open hood photo, and maybe the top one too - although we need something good to replace this one first. I'm going to have a rummage around the photos we have on the Wiki when I have time.

I don't how we would caption the top photo better. It is labeled 'Lyon (Rhône), 1986 [Cote :] [Image fixe numérisée]' at the source - certainly appears to be 1980s in origin, I spy Escort Mk.3, Pergeot 205, Renault 4, 5, Mini, Golf Mk.1 - a typical line-up for the period. That seems to be all the info available on that. My French doesn't quite reach 'appalling' status but av.com reckons 'numérisée' means 'digitized' so that's no help.

So far I've not removed any of the photos, fearing that someone more knowledgeable than me selected them for a good reason, but I think the time will come soon! Probable hitlist will be: GAZ Chaika (was that important in non-Euro&US markets?), Ford Falcon, Saturn SL-1 and Saturn ION2/Corvette (to replace with an older corvette probably). akaDruid 09:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pickup Truck

The "Pickup Truck" is a purely American and fairly inappropriate name. The catagory should probably be 'Utility vehicle'. Along those lines, in the opening sentance under "general" it describes a vehicle that is capable of off road travel as an SUV... This is not really accurate. It would be a truck or a utility vehicle that is preferable for off road travel. 210.50.30.22 11:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd disagree; as an Englishman (albeit living in the US now) -- the words 'pickup truck' are quite familiar to a resident of the UK also, and I suspect to most of the world. 'Utility vehicle' to a British or American reader tends to imply something that isn't a pickup bed truck, most likely a Land Rover or other kind of enclosed-bed off-roader. I assume you are living in a country neither the UK nor USA, since 'utility' tends to mean 'pickup truck' only in places like South Africa and Australia. The problem with replacing 'pickup truck' with 'utility vehicle' is that you are replacing a regional term recognised by maybe 70-80% of native English speakers with one recognised by only 20-30%. Your regional terminology should not be privileged above someone else's just because it's a non-US variant.

Instead, I'd like to ask:

1. For what populations are the words 'pickup truck' incomprehensible?
2. Is there a term those populations would recognise that is ALSO recognisable by those who use the existing terminology, that's succinct and not a description? I have a strong suspicion that the answer to this is no.
3. Is it better to just add a parenthesised explanation after the link for those

who don't recognise 'pickup truck'?

I do agree that the American use of 'truck', unadorned, to mean pickup trucks primarily is confusing to everyone else, and we shouldn't be doing it in articles not specifically about US topics. —Morven 19:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Categorization

How should automobile types and manufacturers be categorized? See Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Categorization and help us decide. —Morven 19:48, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Etymology of the term

Automobile seems to be a compound Greco-Latin term meaning "self moving", which would be an adjective. Would the complete term at some time have been "automobile carriage"? - knoodelhed 18:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

External links

After seeing a revert on an added external link and it being re-added on the justification that it was no more commercial than the others, I removed almost all of the external links. Most of them were specifically about car accidents anyway. If this page is going to have external links, they should be relevant to the general topic of automobiles, not about specific things. —Morven 03:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Automobile article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Automobile}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Auto Repair

--> I don't know where else to put this. Can we add a section about consumer rights and tips re: automotive repair? (i.e. how to protect oneself from unscrupoulous mechanics, regulatory bodies in different states and countries, etc.)? Info on internet search engines is scarce, so I don't know the first place to look. (I'm new to Wiki, so if this is bad taste or not in spirit, just let me know).

This should be at car

As "car" is the most common term, and "car" is used throughout in the article - I've suggested on Wikipedia:Requested moves that this page is moved there. jguk 09:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gallery

Can the gallery of pictures at the bottom of this page be replaced with a link to the car page on the commons? - SimonP 07:38, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Automobile → Car

"Car" is the most common term; "car" is used throughout in the article; "car" is what people use in everyday speech throughout the world; and the only earlier discussion on the topic suggested moving the page to "car" with no opposition. jguk 09:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Why not reopen discussion on the talk page first? This page DOES say you should try to reach consensus there first. There are a couple of problems with this move, the first being that a simple move is not appropriate. Automobile and car are not complete synonyms. Automobile refers to all self-propelled vehicles, technically; in actual usage, it refers to all classes of four-wheeled, self-propelled vehicles used for personal transportation, including pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans/MPVs as well as cars. Thus, a refactoring is needed to make an article at car, because car is a subset of the class automobile.
• The second problem is that there are other meanings for 'car' which don't mean the four-wheeled personal transportation device, including the railroad car, trolley car, etc etc etc. Automobile's virtue is that it IS an unambiguous term. This is a qualified slightly support from me: I support it if you are willing to do a good amount of the work required to make this move really work. Otherwise, you're being an "idea person" and leaving the heavy lifting to others. I suspect that much of the content at Automobile could move to car, but a short article should be left at automobile. —Morven 09:37, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • PS. characterising the previous debate as having 'no opposition' isn't quite the truth. Nobody supported keeping it at automobile, but the non-synonymous nature of the two words was recognised, and there was disagreement about where to move TO. —Morven 09:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• I oppose for many of the reasons Morven put forward. Automobile includes all of the relevant vehicles, while car does not and could include non-relevant vehicles. In this world of crossover SUVs and pickup trucks, it is especially wrong to move automobile to car - a large percentage of the motoring world uses non-car automobiles for transportation! --SFoskett 15:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose Morven laid down a pretty good case (despite his slight support for the move). Although, I would like to see Automobile article discuss in detail more vehicle types than just the car and truck. —ExplorerCDT 21:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. I'm not sure how Morven's argument gets him to "slightly support" the move, because the same thoughts lead me to the opposite conclusion. "Automobile" includes all the vehicles in question and is unambiguous; "car" is both narrower and ambiguous. Leave the article where it lies. Car should be a disambig page. —Tkinias 21:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly support. The current car actually points to automobile, which is silly. The bulk of the article is about cars and every single illustration with the exception of the Jeep and the Hummer are recognisable as cars. Move the article to car and then fish stuff out at your leisure to make articles on other kinds of road vehicle. The current article provides very poor coverage of automobiles with the exception of cars and smaller utility vehicles. truck and bus artic/semi, etc, have their own articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support, since the opening line reads "An automobile, usually called a car", and has done since April 2003 - and provided that jguk agrees to do consequential clean-up. Icundell 11:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Support. A move will encourage whatever refactoring is necessary, and long-term lead to better coverage of non-car automobiles. Rd232 14:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. To continue the quote above,it runs "An automobile, usually called a car (an old word for carriage) or a truck ..." Car is simply not accurate. - Vague | Rant 07:07, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Object. This article describes automobiles in general, not merely passenger sedans. ADH (t&m) 23:48, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: Those opposing the move seem to be using the word "automobile" to have a meaning greater than the meaning of "car" which is unfamiliar to me, and also which is not borne out by the article itself. It would be useful if those who believe automobile does have a wider meaning than "car" could add this to the article. jguk 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I've made a very small start, but in honesty the topic needs attention by somebody with far greater knowledge than I. Since most of the content of the article is about cars it would make sense to have it under that title instead, but an article is still needed that talks about vans, cars, trucks, tractors and all automobiles in general. TACD 15:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Automobile' is unambiguous, but 'car' can refer to any automobile or other types of conveyance (ie. streetcar, elevator car, etc.). Car should be a disambiguation page. —Mike 21:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• support - The term 'Automobile' is an Americanism and is hardly ever used in the UK or many other English speaking countries. For the sake of internationalism it should be moved to 'Car'. G-Man 19:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose present term is unambiguous and inclusive of only those items we want to include and not of all 'cars' (such as railway cars, etc). Note also that 'Automobile' is not an americanism: the AA:'Automobile Association' and RAC:'Royal Automobile Club'. Historically and for accuracy, 'automobile' is way better than 'car' --Vamp:Willow 20:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support - agree with supporting comments above. Timrollpickering 23:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - A car is a different thing than an automobile. People say cars when refering to cars, vans when refering to van-like vehicles, and trucks, jeeps, suv's. Car should have its own article, if those others do (which i didnt check if they do. if they just link to automobile, it is even less reason to move it.) SECProto 03:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Support - automobile is an Americanism (it's long long fallen out of use in UK/Irl). Motor vehicle encompasses those non-car automotive road units. zoney ♣ talk 22:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Then propose a move to motor vehicle (I might support this), but car is grossly inaccurate when your article discusses a class of machines of which semi tractors are a part. Automobile is just as uncommon in colloquial American speech as it is in the U.K., but where accuracy is concerned no Subject I know would speak of "cars" when referring to lorries and vans. (In fact, just recently I heard a BBC reporter refer to "automobile manufacturer Peugot," so apparently the insidious Americanization conspiracy has infiltrated the highest echelons of British nationalism; in this case I think it's too late anyway, and expect to see you all driving SUVs by the end of the week.) ADH (t&m) 23:56, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both car, automobile and auto for short are used in English Canada. People speak equally of "car insurance" or "auto insurance" or "automobile insurance". There is no doubt that in common speech "car" is used more frequently, but as many have pointed out the word "car" has umpteen other meanings such as "street car", "elevator car". Motor vehicle is also broader than "car". Does anybody ever consult a dictionary nowadays?" The Ontario Highway Traffic Act, defines "motor vehicle" as including an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car, or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act. As for the UK, I notice the main road associations are still called "Automobile Association" and "Royal Automobile Club", "British Automobile Racing Club". The abbreviation "auto" seems to be rarely used in the UK. "Car" is much preferred on the gov.uk websites. However, Motor vehicle is used quite a bit by the UK government --BrentS 01:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Automobile is the technical term for it and should be used in resources such as Encyclopedias. What is refered to as a car is only one type of automobile. The term "car" is also too ambiguous [1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=car&r=67). Norman Rogers\^talk 02:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: The arguments against are more convincing to me that those for using 'Car'. As a matter of fair disclosure ... I'm an American. Courtland 00:51, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

car/automobile population

Where would it be possible to find data on the total world car population? It would be very helpful to make a graph and plot car population vs time.

Well, according to this site: http://www.bigpicturesmallworld.com/Global%20Inc%202/pgs/repcorp/motor_b.html

There are over 510 million cars in the world today. I don't know how accurate that figure is though. Would be interesting to know how that compares to earlier years and make educated projections.

Purchasing an automobile

I'm looking at the phrase 'test drive' right now, which is presently pointing at a videogame. In looking for a disambiguation strategy I find that there seems to be nothing in Wikipedia about buying an auto (or other vehicle). Buying an auto is almost ritualistic in the United States and could make for an interesting article ... or an addition to this one.

Which would be better ... to add a section to this article or to start another? In the event of starting another, one might start a trend toward 'purchase' articles for other objects that have particular issues around buying them, such as homes, works of art, insurance policies, etc. That's why I hesitate to just 'do it' because it doesn't seem to be a place where Wikipedia has gone up to now.

My vote (nice if you could add yours here too) ...

alternative fuels

I just want to point out that using 100% Bio-Diesel in modern diesel engines is actually not advisable. Mixtures up to 30-50% are no problem, but anyhting higher quickly becomes problematic. Modern common rail fuel injection systems need modifications in order to preheat the fuel and therefore reduce its viscosity, they need significantly stronger pumps and best would be a different set of injection nozzles ... All older diesel engines (80ies to mid 90s) can run with tiny modifications (the preheater) on nearly 100% Bio-Diesel without problem. These cars only experience a significantly higher wear of the fuel pump system, which usually fails fairly quickly. It is therefore very strongly advised for anybody seriously changing to bio-diesel, to have a spare injection pump system lying in the boot.

Add a section to this article Courtland 00:48, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)