Talk:Bumper (car)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bumper (car) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Removed content

Bumper is also the name given to some people in the Sourashtra region of Western India. These people get their name due to the extra large size of the rear pelvic area of their human body. Some of the characteristics of a Bumper include laziness, extremely slow driving on roads, frequent winking of eyes etc.

Content added by 198.22.123.10 (talk · contribs) has been removed. I find it to be unsubstantiated, racist, and probably a prank. --Viriditas | Talk 29 June 2005 12:20 (UTC)

Article quality

This article seems to be written from a non-neutral viewpoint. The tone sounds like a criticism of modern bumpers rather than a discussionDreamlogic (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I have put in several hours' work upgrading the article with more detailed information, more references, and a more neutral and balanced tone. A great deal more work is needed, for presently the article really only covers the U.S. situation in detail, Canada as an overview, the international ECE regulations only tangentially, and the Japanese regulations not at all. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image selection

Vegavairbob, edit wars are not allowed here. On June 26, you added an image to this article. It is a clear and sharp image, but it is not especially illustrative of the subject matter. On July 6, I provided a composite image, also clear and sharp, but considerably more illustrative of the subject matter. This morning, you reverted twice, each time with a belligerent, edit-warring summary. This is not okeh. Please try to keep in mind that the object isn't for any particular editor to have as many of his own images of his own personal car in as many articles as possible. The object is optimally-illustrative images of highest quality, no matter who produced them. It is neither helpful nor productive for you to revert simply because you want your image of your car in the article. On the left here in this section is the image you want to use. On the right is the one I prefer. Let's get a discussion going based on the merits of the images: How do you reckon your image better illustrates the subject matter of the relevant section of the article? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Front and rear bumpers on Chrysler A platform cars before (left, 1971) and after (right, 1974) the U.S. 5-mph bumper standard took effect. The 1974 bumpers are larger, heavier, and mounted farther away from the body, and they no longer contain the taillamps.

I would have to agree with Scheinwerfermann, the comparison images are excellent to say the least. Scheinwerfermann has produced high-quality images of virtually identical cars, and in that sense his comparison is very comprehensible. At the same time, Vegavairbob's image better depicts the entire front-end of the car; this is less important in this article. If a compromise is the only answer, lets keep both for now. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of including the Vega image when the other one is so much clearer and more informative. And your compromise of keeping them both makes the overall layout of the article messy and hard to read. I'd favor just having the composite image, on the left so that it doesn't conflict with the other image above it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the comparison images best illustrate the design changes to bumpers. The image of the Vega is not needed, in my opinion. — 03:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, edit warring and image placement against consensus is not allowed whether you do it under your own name or with a sock puppet. Stop it now. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

globalize tag is illogical and insulting to other cultures

bumber

checking other languages bumper articles only the German seems to have something extra' i would suggest that no other language has the wiki nonsense that the English wiki has. most non English contributors will not be willing to put up with the stuff that some english editors deal out . so it is largely an cultural issue. if here was a global interest to contribute some one would have done it by now. my contributions have been criticized having been written in my second or third or fourth language. the globalize tag is illogical and insulting to readers from other cultures because of several implications .KMAs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdl1961 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2009 July 11

Wdl1961, the globalize template points to a genuine shortcoming of this article. We don't remove templates like this without fixing the problem they indicate; doing so is considered vandalism. There is no real way in which this template is "insulting to other cultures". It's not a call for "global interest to contribute", it's an indication that the subject matter is globally applicable — cars all over the world have bumpers — but the implementation differs by country, and the article deals with only certain countries' implementations. That's still the case, and that's why the template needs to stay. It's been replaced, and it will need to stay until the problem is fixed.

Also, please remember to sign your comments correctly on talk pages; that's the polite thing to do. Thanks for editing coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is the problem and be specific with the wiki refs putting stuff in without a reason is vandalisme refer to wiki common sense etc.KMAs

Please read up on the status of articles you're not familiar with. If you'll look ↑up earlier on this page↑ you'll see the reason spelled out clearly. Please do not continue to remove templates without correcting the shortcoming they indicate or you will likely wind up blocked, eventually. Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from the article content that this article provides detailed information from a solely North American perspective. Instead of the generic {{Globalize}} template, I would recommend that we could perhaps use the more specific {{Globalize/North America}} template for the time being. But certainly such a template is warranted. — ^\`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^`^/ 04:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the North America-specific template is the better pick — thanks for pointing at it. I've made the change. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article now seems to reflect global issues surrounding 'bumper' - that were missing 7 years ago. Removing tag.PLawrence99cx (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense (section)

Why isn't this page an official policy? If you need to be told that this is a rule, you've missed the point entirely.

read,learn,corrolate,think

signed KMAs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdl1961 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 2009 July 12

Wdl1961, common sense is certainly an important element, but it does not trump the basic principle of working coöperatively by consensus; you seem to have a notion of what constitutes "common sense" in this case different from the consensus view. Please remember that consensus does not require unanimity. Beyond that, it's not clear why you think any of the policies you've listed here applies to this present situation. If you feel the rest of us are missing your point, please try again to explain your position clearly and coherently here on the talk page. Use paragraphs, not just bullet-point lists. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uote from above

what is the problem and be specific with the wiki refs putting stuff in without a reason
is vandalisme refer to wiki common sense etc.

are you ever going to answere a simple question? al ellse blah blah blah blah

same issue

signed refernced KMAs —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 10:06, 2009 July 12 Wdl1961

Wdl1961, if you do not stop vandalising this article by removing maintenance templates without fixing the problem they indicate, you will likely wind up blocked. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wunderbahr amazing you know how the whole rest of the world thinks .KMAs

3rd Opinion

Someone requested a 3rd opinion at WP:3; therefore I am offering one. It seems to me that the North America specific banner is probably appropriate since the only rules being discussed are those of the U.S. and Canada. I admit that it may not be easy to find info on the rules and regulations of other countries, but it should not be impossible and it should be done to make the article complete. With a quick search I did find this site: [1], which has a brief comparison of European collision safety requirements with the bumper damage requirements of the U.S. and Canada. Now as to some of the other issues that came up in this thread. There are two good reasons for removing a banner. One is that the underlying issue has been addressed, and the other is that the banner wasn't appropriate in the first place. However, before removing a banner (especially for the 2nd reason) it is probably a good idea to suggest removing the banner on the talk page and request comments. This helps avoid needless conflict. Having said that I think that some of the conflict in this case could have been avoided if —Scheinwerfermann had simply explained the reasoning for adding the banner in the first place rather than talking about vandalism and possible blocks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Government web sites should be good sources. Peter Horn User talk 02:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bumper versus bumper fascia

fascia image belongs in fascia section . a bumper is needed for lead image(Vegavairbob (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Added referenced information and images of "real" bumpers to the lead section. CZmarlin (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpers on other vehicles.

What about bumpers on trucks and other vehicles? Peter Horn User talk 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, coverage of truck and other vehicle bumpers belongs here. Go ahead and be bold and add what you can. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is named as Bumper (automobile) -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes…and? I have a hard time imagining there's insufficient overlap between car and truck and bus and van bumpers to exclude the non-car ones from this article. Likewise, I have a hard time imagining there's enough difference between car and truck and bus and van bumpers to warrant separate articles. You do raise a good point; a more appropriate title for this article might be Bumper (automotive) or Bumper (vehicle). —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"other vehicles?" it was just a reminder that it was for automobiles not for all other vehicles -->Typ932 ^T·C 04:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let's rename (move) the article to Bumper (automotive) or Bumper (vehicle). Peter Horn User talk 02:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper (vehicle) is a redirect page for now. Peter Horn User talk 02:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper History

When did motor vehicle bumpers, in the way they became known, come into use? Did they become a legal requirement in USA in the late 1920s? I think they became common in Europe rather later. US bumpers were always sturdier enabling "parking by ear"?

When did bumpers visually disappear? In the 1970s? Eddaido (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bumpers may have been "invented" around 1900. They were simply not used. Old US cars may appear to have original bumpers but I bet they have been added later to comply with local laws.

See 1925 Buick advertisement - no bumpers Eddaido (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The United States section of this article is written from a non-neutral viewpoint. The tone sounds like it was written by an insurance industry lobbyist.

Market failure is the theory that underlies all government regulation. For example, the consumers and producers operating in a free market receive no market signals on the cost of emissions, so the amount of Vehicle emissions control they would then choose is suboptimal.

Automobile bumpers are an exact mirror image - all the costs are economic and there is no information barrier preventing consumers from knowing repair costs and vulnerability of different models.

Instead, US bumper regulations are an example of Government failure - industry lobbyists capture government and use its power to force undesired outcomes on consumers. The US is perhaps unique in having developed an adversarial relationship (in the 1960's) between the automaker Oligopoly and the government, leading to the US government trying to design cars.

Also - the alleged 'weakening' in 1981 was not some nefarious scheme - Cost–benefit analysis is a very appropriate tool for NHTSA to use - hopefully not 8 years too late, as in the case of the 5 mile per hour bumper. PLawrence99cx (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. section of this article is well supported with good quality references, just like it's supposed to be as per WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. If you can find equally-as-good 'reliable' sources that support your opinion, then great, add them. But your opinion about the United States section of this article being non-neutral, followed by a bunch of reactionary verbiage about the big, bad, adversarial government, is a pretty nice example of this over here.

Also, the weakening of the bumper standard actually happened in reality, so it doesn't warrant your sarcastic little scare quotes. You really gonna sit there and say the standard wasn't weakened? OK, but you'll have a hard time supporting that claim, because the standard was really, truly, actually weakened, and there's tons of top-quality documentation of that fact...some of which is used right here in the article to support the claims, just like we're supposed to do on Wikipedia!

I'm not finding anything in the article where anyone claims the weakening of the standard was a "nefarious scheme". There's discussion of various consumer/insurance groups asserting (and demonstrating) that the weakened standard has resulted in increased costs for consumers, but I don't see anyone calling it a "nefarious scheme". Sheesh, talk about non-neutrality!! Pogorrhœa (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bumper (car). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Following the 1967 death of actress Jayne Mansfield..."

Earlier I removed a [when] tag from "Following the 1967^[when?] death of actress Jayne Mansfield in an auto/truck accident, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommended..." in §Truck vs. car, because to me this read as asking the rather silly question of "when was 1967?". However, it was correctly pointed out that the NHTSA didn't exist in 1967, so the recommendation had to appear at some, presently unspecified, point after 1967. This makes a [when] tag perfectly reasonable. However, may I propose moving the [when] to after "Following" rather than after "1967"?

Following the 1967^[when?] death → "when was 1967?"
Following^[when?] the 1967 death → "when did the thing that happened after 1967 happen?"

oatco (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]