Talk:Car/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Car. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Is this article about automobiles or cars?

The proposal to move this page to car failed, partly because "automobile" also refers to other types of vehicle and not just cars, but those opposing the move seem to have not noticed that this page is just about cars, with the wider topic of all road vehicles covered within the vehicle article. If there is a difference, should this article be split? Peter James (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As I linked in that discussion, the idea that "automobile" is different from car is not supported by the OED. Regardless, as far as I can tell, this article is about cars. It is not about heavy trucks/lorries, tractors or anything else of the sort. All those sub-topics have their own articles, and whatever little information on them that exists in this article should most certainly be split off. I don't, however, think there is much to split. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a question for editors who opposed the move - if they are different then based on the current content this should be at car. I don't think that they are, but support the move, based on commonality and common name. The spell checker in Firefox doesn't recognise "automobile", and suggests "auto mobile". Peter James (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a little late, even if we wanted to move the article and split it, we could not do it for a while, since the previous RM was so near in the past. I mean, we could, but that is usually frowned upon. Of course, my opinion was already pre-determined. Let's see what the others think. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

People, why make something that easy so hard? Let's just integrate a section for "Types of automobiles", so you can refer to trucks, tractors or whatever. :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not. Because the OED says that trucks are not automobiles. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Safety

I added a link to Low speed vehicle at the safety section, but I think that vehicles that have lower amounts of horsepower (10 HP or less) should be mentioned, as these could allow passing a law for reducing the maximum amount of horsepower on all cars. See Talk:Green_vehicle#Power rating KVDP (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) How stupid indeed. Automobile should cover more than car (judging by comments on the move request). But actually, the other types which it should cover are mostly not addressed in this article. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

cars

World vehicles per capita

Use the nicer colors of the older PNG file, new colors do not contrast the colors by making the all into shades of green

The better old colors

The horrid new colors

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.105.99 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Horrid? That is a matter of taste - I quite like it. The old image is almost useless for people with red-green color blindness. The new image uses brightness to show the numbers. Stepho talk 22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Misleading caption

The caption of one picture says

Ford Model T, 1927, regarded as the first affordable American automobile

This implies that the 1927 version was the first affordable one, whereas actually that was the 1908 version. I suggest the following replacement caption:

Introduced in 1908, the Ford Model T is widely regarded as the first affordable American automobile. Shown here is the 1927 model.

Also, is the qualifier "American" necessary? 208.50.124.65 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the picture caption claim as not cited and confusing. Warren (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference date format

Please note that yyyy-mm-dd is allowed in references even though the main text uses d mmm yyyy. This is allowed by MOS:DATEUNIFY. Stepho talk 03:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is allowed, but I do not find it preferable. Regardless, let it be. RGloucester — ☎ 03:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm with RGloucester on this - Most users here prefer one or the other and I prefer it as it's consistent ... YYYY-MM-DD is IMHO outdated. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Stepho talk 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't matter what your opinion is; YYYY-MM-DD is a superior |date= format in that it presents the most important information first, followed by the less important information, and considering that humans read left to right, I would consider DMY to be the most inferior format possible. I don't see why YYYY MONTH DD isn't the international standard, to be honest. Regardless, it shouldn't be based on preference; if it was YYYY-MM-DD before, it should remain that way, and the same applies for the reverse scenario. Dustin (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, in traditional Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, one reads right-to-left in vertical writing. Vertical right-to-left writing is still standard in Japanese literature, as I'm quite aware. Arabic is also read right-to-left. The idea that "humans read left-to-right" is bizarre. Regardless, this article was in DMY to start with, but reference dates were in the odd, awkward, and foreign format I've never seen outside Wikipedia called "YYYY-MM-DD". MOS:DATEUNIFY allows DMY body with YYYY-MM-DD reference dates, but does not favour them. It favours uniformity, on the whole. It is up to us to interpret the guidelines. I prefer unity, personally, given the name of the guideline. As I said, though, I'm not keen to change it here. As a matter of fact, it is based on "preference", i.e. the preference established by editors through editing. That's why we have DMY and YYYY-MM-DD here to begin with. RGloucester — ☎ 02:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

With all respect Dustin We all have our preferences and I've stated mine, You prefer one format, I refer another so saying "It doesn't matter what your opinion is;" is quite frankly a pathetic thing to say. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It still doesn't matter what your opinion is in this situation, it matters what reasoning you use to back it up (I was referring to RGloucester then, and initially, the only statement from that user was "It is allowed, but I do not find it preferable. Regardless, let it be."), and my statement is not pathetic. And in what way is YYYY-MM-DD "outdated"? As a database format, I can at least say that even if not necessarily "left to right", computers read from "beginning to end". That, I believe, is part of the reason for which in certain situations, YYYY-MM-DD is preferred. I do not believe that this should change, and I expect editors in the EU and other places using DD-MM-YYYY to disagree with me, but I still would like an answer as to why less important date information that alone is useless should be present before the more important date information which, even alone, could be used. Say you take the date 2014-08-24 vs. 24 August 2014; 2014 alone works, 2014 August is better, 2014 August 24 allows you to narrow down the date before you have even finished reading it. Now look at it the other way; 24 is useless alone. 24 August is still not particularly helpful as it could be from any period in a range encompassing over a hundred years. Only when you have the entire date of 24 August 2014 is it of any use. While when you consider the rate at which most people read, this particular example would not make a significant difference, it highlights my meaning in that it is more logical to present essential material before less important material. Even if it is a very small scale and it mostly only makes a difference when processing dates with software, if it makes even a slight difference in any matter, why present the specific figures before the broad figures? Written out 2014 August 24 is not a widely accepted format (I am not sure if there are any situations where it is actually used), but at least 2014-08-24 is in a somewhat common format, so why not use it? Dustin (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe in mathematics, so your illustration is lost on me. I prefer to use what is traditional (and if I had my way, I'd be writing out "24th day of August in the year of our Lord two-thousand and fourteen"), not what is logical. I don't see how any of this is relevant here, however, and hence it should be truncated. If you'd like to propose universal adoption of your favoured date format, MOS:NUM is open to you. RGloucester — ☎ 02:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'm surprised that someone actually read my too-long statement above. I don't even care much about this particular situation anymore. Dustin (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I read everything, dear fellow. Always good to make sure no important snippets of information slip through the cracks of time. RGloucester — ☎ 02:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Outdated? Have they revised ISO 8601, then? Or is international standardisation outdated too? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@SamBlob: What do you know... I thought DMY was the international standard, but it seems that YMD is the standard. Thank you for pointing that out. Dustin (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, that is for technical and specialist use, and has no relation to common usage amongst people. RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

summary

the into should say: "A car or automobile...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.67.121 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose – Per Wikipedia:ALTERNATIVETITLE, if there are at least three alternative names, a separate section should be used. We have that section already. RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Article titles

"Car," although sometimes used in general to refer to automobiles, more commonly refers to any automobile that is not a truck, minivan, motorcycle, etc. This usage of "car" is what the article appears to chiefly discuss. "Automobile," in general usually refers to any motor vehicle on wheels that is not a train. The article motor vehicle is chiefly about that, but "automobile" seems to be used more. I suggest "Automobile" be redirected to motor vehicle, and maybe in the future, be moved to automobile if that can be confirmed as the WP:COMMONNAME. Qxukhgiels (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Lorries, vans, &c. are not "automobiles" according to the OED, as demonstrated above. Furthermore, "automobile" is an Americanism. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

According to what I've been able to dig up, the term "automobile" arose in the early days of the auto industry, as a term for what we'd call cars. The first motor vehicles, for a long time, were only passenger cars. This appears to be the origin of the term "automobile" relating to cars. I'm going to look some more.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, automobile doesn't appear to be used anymore. Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There should be an article to differentiate the car general land vehicle (trucks, minivans, etc.) from the smaller vehicle that is also referred to as a car more specifically. It's like that thing where people try to call boots shoes, but in reality, they should be differed. Luckily, there is the term "footwear" in that situation, but I don't see any article dedicated to general civilian land vehicles. Dustin (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Motor vehicle. RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, from what I've been able to find, the term "automobile" arose in the early days of the auto industry to refer to motor vehicles, in general, and since the only motor vehicles at that time were what we'd call "cars," this appears to be synonymous with motor vehicle. Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not according to the OED, for the nth time (it says that "automobile" is a chiefly North American way to refer to "cars"). By the way, if you have access to the full version of the OED with etymological details and stuff, it provides the following more detailed definition:

2. Chiefly N. Amer. A road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal-combustion engine), esp. one designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers; a car. Now chiefly in formal, commercial, or journalistic contexts, car being the usual word in informal and spoken English

An "automobile" is a "car", as it says. RGloucester — ☎ 20:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2015

This edit request to Car has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the second para, pls change the sentence that reads "Both fuels are known to cause air pollution and are also blamed for contributing..." to read, "Both fuels cause air pollution and are also blamed for contributing..."

Succinctness rules.

Thank you.

Wsdarter (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 23:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Autogas (LPG) as an alternative fuel

Good morning!

As I cannot perform the change myself I present it here for some helpful volunteer to take on this task.

The reference to alternative fuels misses the fuel with the largest group of users world wide. Autogas (LPG) is used in nearly 25 million vehicles around the world (mostly cars), the bulk in the Asia Pacific Region and in Europe. It is only surpassed by ethanol which is used predominantly in the US and Brazil and is mixed to varying levels with gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_the_United_States http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/market.html

I therefore suggest the following change: "Vehicles using alternative fuels such as ethanol flexible-fuel vehicles, Autogas vehicles and natural gas vehicles are also gaining popularity in some countries.

The term Autogas vehicles should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogas

Thank you very much in advance!

Mr. Autogas (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note regarding the term "Dashboard" as used regarding automobiles. Your text quotes a dictionary definition as dashboard and instrument panel fairly interchangeable. And it is in fact so. But there history as correctly pointed out is the dash board literally meant a board onto which the horse could kick up dirt, mud, etc. Thus the board protected the horse drawn carriage.

In automobile terms the "Firewall" better represents the so called board separating passengers from dirt, engine heat, noise, possible flames, etc.

Therefore, the term instrument panel better describes the panel to which the instrument cluster, steering wheel and other controls are connected. Ron Nuetzel (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

This edit request to Car has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add "biofuel" to types of fuel 71.187.236.53 (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't biofuels usually just diesel and gasoline anyway? Stickee (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Horseless Carriage.

Was a common name back in the day. It should be included. 19:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.51.136 (talk)

could go into the Etymology section, with a refOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

This edit request to Car has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add a full list of car brands sold in India 65.175.134.44 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done - Wikipedia is not a directory - Arjayay (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

In the lead

"addition features and controls" should read "additional features and controls" the "al" is missing, my error. 24.167.133.218 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141029101221/http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends/gtrends396.htm to http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/gtrends/gtrends396.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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} 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Automobile in the lead sentence

I added the common synonym for car, automobile (admittedly mainly in North America), to the lede's opening sentence. RGloucester reverted the change, citing MOS:LEADALT. Very well, so I go check out the cited MOS guideline...and it says it is perfectly normal to add in other variant terms for the article title, right in the lede's first sentence. The only exception it sets out is cases where more than three variant terms are used, in which case it says that these variant terms should be relocated out of the lede and into an Etymology section. In my edit, I added ONE variant term to the lede. Based on my reading of the cited MOS section, I believe that the variant term "automobile" should be reinstated into the lede. RGloucester, is there a clause in the cited MOS passage that I missed that would support your argument that having a variant term appear in the lede is contrary to the MOS?OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Automobile" cannot be given special treatment. If it is included, then we have to include the other major variants in the lead sentence. As there are more than four such variants, they belong in the etymology section, per the relevant MOS section. RGloucester — ☎ 17:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Given WP:ENGVAR and the previous article name, it perhaps makes sense to be open, or open to discussion. —Sladen (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The word "automobile" is in current usage and should be noted in the lead, as described in the MOS:LEADALT guidelines: “significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." There is no need to dismiss this word and claim that other (and archaic) words would also have to be included in the lead. Clearly "automobile" is important and serves as the basis of the Automotive industry, or perhaps that article should now be changed to "Car industry" rather than a redirect? CZmarlin (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you've not read WP:LEADALT. There are more than three major variants, such as "motor car", "automobile", "autocar", "car", &c. According to MOS:LEADALT, if there are more than two variants, they should be moved to the etymology section, as is done here. Let's follow the guidelines. We cannot just include "automobile" in the lead as a variant, as this would not make any sense. Either all major variants must be included in the lead, or they should be moved to a lower section. In this case, they are in the lower case section. Read the policy, which I'll quote "Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line". Furthermore, for clarity, "automotive" is not in fact derived from "automobile", and is a separate classical compound that predates that word. See the OED on that matter. RGloucester — ☎ 05:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In the interests of garnering information. RGloucester, could you state what other variants (you) consider to be "major"? —Sladen (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The distinction between "major" and "minor" variants is not made by the guideline. However, for the purposes of this discussion, one must make clear that "motor car", "autocar", and "auto" are the other major variants in current use. "Motor car" is the standard formal term for cars in British English, much as "automobile" is in American English. "Autocar" is still used in certain contexts, and is the name of a popular magazine. I strongly reject your reversion to an unstable version. The stable and guideline-compliant version must be restored per WP:BRD. RGloucester — ☎ 05:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So considering variants of English and the subject matter itself (rather than other languages, or periodicals); "Motor car" and "automobile"? —Sladen (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No! The major variants are car, motor car, automobile, autocar, and auto. There are even more variants, if we take other archaic names into account. In any case, the guideline recommends the current set-up when dealing with 2–3 variants, which would be the case even if we only considered "car", "motor car", and "automobile". RGloucester — ☎ 05:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please could we have discussion, rather than a revert battle. —Sladen (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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} 08:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links

|}

A98cr125 (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Spam — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016

This edit request to Car has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i want to edit the page and i have replacement link of the dead link in this page kindly give me permission so i remove the dead link with the replacement

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dead link replace

'Car' derived from 'carrus'[dead link] https://library.wayne.edu/resources/special_collections/local/cfai/index.php Above mentioned link is dead so it should be replaced with the following link as it has same content and fully refers the content. ^[1]New baba (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

References

^ "The Etymology of Car From Carrus". Don's Mobile Glass. 28 July 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-28.

Spam. Edit reverted. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2016

This edit request to Car has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This link 'http://www.lib.wayne.edu/resources/special_collections/local/cfai/index.php' for - 'Car' derived from 'carrus' - does not exist. Would like to replace with a pdf - https://www.fastbuyinc.com/s/car-definition.pdf

Fastbuyinc (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done Self-published source. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It is mentioned as a dead link! Varun FEB2003 08:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515145403/http://www.laparks.org/grifmet/tt/htmgallery/gallery_urbans/atchison177.htm to http://www.laparks.org/grifmet/tt/htmgallery/gallery_urbans/atchison177.htm

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Car. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass production

There is a contradiction between the Car article and the Assembly line article.

Car: "As a result, Ford's cars came off the line in fifteen-minute intervals"

Assembly line: "As a result of these developments in method, Ford's cars came off the line in three-minute intervals"

Which one is true ?

ThePro (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I remember reading a few years ago that Ford continuously improved the assembly line. So perhaps the early iterations were every 15 minutes and the later iterations got it down to every 3 minutes. Can't remember where I read that but it might give you something to search on. Stepho talk 14:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Automobile in the lead sentence, again

I have just re-reverted RGloucester's removal of "automobile" from the start of the first sentence. The thrust of MOS:LEADALT is that major alternative names, particularly those that could plausibly be the title of the article, should be mentioned at the start. In particular, the hatnote refers to both "car" and "automobile". I agree that "car" is the better title, being fully international, but "automobile" is at least equally common in at least one area of the English-speaking world, so should be mentioned at the outset, and the hatnote is right to refer to its redirecting here, for the same reason. RGloucester argues that other terms are also major terms for "car"; I disagree. "Auto" is an abbreviation of "automobile" and thus not nearly so important to mention at the outset, and conversely "motor car", of which "car" is an abbreviation, is now rare. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I applaud the effort to try something new by moving "automobile" a few sentences down and associating it with the German patent, but it's neither historic nor German-associated in its current use. See the discussion under the same heading without "again", from a little more than a year ago, in which most were in agreement that it's a major alternative term. The hatnote also indicates that. The other terms are not nearly as common. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely unacceptable in relation to the guidelines. The major variants are motor car, automobile and car, though other quasi-major variants exist, and the guideline itself does not concern itself with the 'majorness' of the variants. 'Motor car' is not rare in British usage. It is the default formal name for 'cars' in British English, much like 'automobile' is in American English. If you include automobile in the lead, you must include motor car, and indeed, other variants. The guidelines are clear that in such a case, a separate section should be made, and that the variants should not be listed in the lead. The separate section exists, and deals with the various variants in detail, and thus there is no justification for giving 'automobile' special status, whilst ignoring 'motor car', amongst others. You change has been reverted. Follow the guidelines, not your own perception about what is a 'major' variant' RGloucester — ☎ 15:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For simplicity, and so I don't have to listen to you droning on for ten more years about how 'automobile' deserves a special position in this article relative to the guidelines, here is the guideline, repeated, verbatim, with my emphasis:

Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead.

Please follow the guidelines, as they are written. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a guideline, not some kind of law, and it says "CAN". There are only two alternatives in this case. "Motor car" is not different from "car", "Auto" is not different from "automobile". There is no earthly necessity to alter the perfectly plain wording which has existed for some time. Ian Dalziel (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

'Motor car' is different from 'car', according to the Oxford English Dictionary as cited in the god-damned article. 'Motor car' indeed, has a specific definition in Britain as defined by the law, which one can find in said dictionary. Indeed, 'auto' is also different from 'automobile', and quite possibly derives from 'autocar' and not 'automobile', but let's put that aside. Regardless, the status quo wording followed the guidelines, with just 'car' in the lead. The guidelines are not law, but no one has provided a good reason to defy them in this specific case, as opposed to any other. Most of the arguments revolve around American English speakers pushing for the use of automobile, to the exclusion of variants from elsewhere, which they label 'not as common'. One region's pet variant does not get to have a special position in this article. It is treated equally to all the others. More importantly, the term that is common the world over, takes prominence, and that's 'car' (WP:COMMONALITY). There is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to 'automobile', excluding the likes of 'motor car'. This has no basis in the guidelines, policy, or elsewhere, and will only lead to cluttered lead filled with variants. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No special treatment is being requested. Yes, "car" is comprehensible worldwide, and the most common term in many, possibly most, English-speaking regions; the article was rightly moved from "automobile", which is unfamiliar outside North America, I believe (I'm not sure what term Australians use). Nonetheless, in the here and now both "motor car" and "car" are far less common, and I don't see anyone except RGloucester asserting that they need to be given equal weight, which is the argument being advanced against putting the major worldwide alternate term in the first sentence. Furthermore, the headnote of the article supports the argument that "automobile" should be there: "For other types of motorized vehicles, see Motor vehicle. For the 2006 Pixar film, see Cars (film). For other uses, see Car (disambiguation) and Automobile (disambiguation)." Having that there is foolish if "automobile" is not a common term that readers may have mistakenly followed to land at this article; it assumes it's the alternate title. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Where is this proof that 'motor car' is far less common? Again, it is the standard formal term for cars in British English (as defined by British law), and associated Commonwealth varieties, whereas 'automobile' is generally perceived as foreign or an Americanism, though it may exist in some specialised contexts. More importantly, if you read the OED links in the article, you'll find that 'automobile' is not particularly common even in America itself, where 'car' is the usual word. The dictionary says, for 'automobile', "Chiefly N. Amer. A road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal-combustion engine), esp. one designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers; a car. Now chiefly in formal, commercial, or journalistic contexts, car being the usual word in informal and spoken English". Therefore, what you're suggesting is to give the American formal variant, which isn't even particularly common, a special position in the article outside the etymology section, excluding the British formal variant, and other variants, contrary to the guidelines. That doesn't make sense. The hatnote existing has nothing to do with the commonality of 'automobile'. It was placed here because some people, contrary to the relevant dictionaries, believe that 'automobile' can also refer to what Americans call 'trucks', and therefore, does not refer to 'cars', but 'motor vehicles' in general. Therefore, a hatnote is required, to ensure people get where they want to go. In any case, the guidelines do not make a distinction about the commonality of variants. They simply say, that if there are more than 2-3 variants (motor car, automobile, autocar, car, auto, horseless carriage, &c.), and if those variants are notable in of themselves, an etymology section is recommended to be created. When such a section is created, the alternative variants ARE NOT RETURNED TO THE LEAD. There isn't anything more to say. Said section exists, and so there is no justification what you're proposing here. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

For proof, we need someone who can do those Google engram things, or better yet some reliable source :-) I'm not sure the OED citation is definitive for the purpose of demonstrating that "automobile" is used less in those regions of the world where it is a common variant than is "motor car" in those regions of the world where it is used; after all, "chiefly in formal, commercial, or journalistic usage" covers a lot, far more than a formal usage in legal regulations. (And I am still ignorant of what Australians use.) Moreover, here's the start of the MOS section, to support my referring to its "thrust" being to include major variant terms: "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." Lower down, it suggests using parentheses/brackets. Perhaps that would be a way forward: "car (in North America often automobile)"? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, no, because you don't have a secondary source that says 'cars are often referred to as automobiles in North America'. Using Ngrams for that purpose would be WP:OR. Secondly, the commonality of the variants doesn't come into play in this context. We are dealing with the 'separate section usage' section of the guideline, because there are a variety of variants, and because they are in and of themselves noteworthy...therefore, it is recommended these be dealt with in a separate section. Of course, they are. In detail. When a separate etymology section exists, the variants are not put in the lead, as per the guideline. Do you intend to delete the etymology section? RGloucester — ☎ 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No. But I maintain that it is an error to place other variants on the same level with "car" and "automobile", and thus the rationale for not also mentioning the latter in the opening sentence collapses, since as the guideline says, "significant" alternate terms should normally be listed. I don't see anyone else agreeing with the contention that "motor car" and "auto" rise to that level of significance, but "automobile" is commonplace in some English-speaking regions. In short, the wrong section of the guideline is being applied - and common usage is precisely the criterion the guideline is based on for determining that. However, since "automobile" is regionally restricted, I again suggest it be placed in parentheses. I'll look in later to see what other editors think. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly the error is in the guideline, but "Etymology" is not a heading to cover alternative names - that would have to be "Names". The etymology - derivation and evolution - of the two names is not linked. Ian Dalziel (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to me to be an error in the guideline: it starts off saying that significant variant names for the topic of the article should be at the top of the lead. RGloucester insists that this article falls under an exceptional situation. It doesn't. We can have a section on the varying terms that have been or are used, but a major term used in one or more regions of the world—and mentioned on that assumption in the hatnote—should be at the start of the lead. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Motor car" does rise to that level of significance. It is commonplace in British usage (and is defined by legislation as the proper term for what we call a 'car'), and the standard formal name for cars in that variety of English. How many times must this be stated, and how many times must it be proved with citations? If you don't accept this basis premise, and keep banging on about how 'automobile' is somehow 'special' because it is a formal variant in American usage, then I expect that there is no point in continuing on here. However, again, the relevant portion of the guideline says nothing about how commonly used a variant is. It simply states that if there are at least 2-3 variants that are noteworthy in of themselves, which there are, they should be dealt with in a separate section. I too would agree that 'etymology' is not the appropriate name for this section, but that's a different matter. The guidelines apply to this article like they do to any other article. 'Automobile' does not get special treatment because it is American. The proposed parenthetical fails WP:V at present, as I said before. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Automobile" and "motor car" are not parallel; the former is a common term, the latter is formal, and the former requires stating for reader understanding in those parts of the world where it is common, whereas the latter will be clearly understood as the longer version of the word used as the title (whether or not "car" actually derives also from "autocar"). The previous discussion did not develop a consensus that "automobile" is unnecessary at the start of the article, and I agree with the rest of those who have discussed this with you that it is not unnecessary. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The OED says that 'automobile' is a formal term, and that 'car' is the usual term for 'automobile' in NA. They are parallel. You have no sources, whereas I've presented the most authoritative dictionary on the English language. In addition, since I didn't link it before because it was linked in the article, here is the OED page for 'motor car'. As you can see, unlike with automobile, 'motor car' is not specified as a formal variant. That's merely my personal experience of the term, but I can assure that it is just as common as automobile is in America. Regardless, I'm sure that you don't care about sources, though. By the way, in all parts of the world where 'automobile' is common, 'car' is more common...which is why the article was moved, and why what you say is a nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 14:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those arguing for inclusion in the lead, for the reasons stated. "Automobile" is a common alternative, especially in the US, and so it reflects a wider world view of terminology. The page is correctly, for reasons of commonality, at "Car" not at "Automobile", but that doesn't mean that or any other alternative names are out of the window – indeed if anything it means we have all the more reason to include it or them. I'm not sure the suggestion that if we include this one, we have to include all alternatives, and therefore the guidelines tell us we include none, although plausibly logical, really works at any of those steps. It is a guideline, not law or policy, which says things "can" be done a certain way or that one option is "recommended"; it confusingly (as everyone agrees) talks about "Etymology". Ultimately as editors we can choose how to present information and what are the most pertinent terms. We can also conclude that "motor car" is close enough to "car" and "automobile" to "auto" and decide to include only one of each, and hence two in total. Or we could agree to bend the guidelines and include three, or even all four. Consensus seems to be for including "automobile" alongside car. I understand some people might not like it, but it seems an odd thing to insist simply cannot be allowed to stand and must be excluded, to the point of edit-warring. N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Fun, that you're following me around. Typical nonsense on Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 14:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I see we again have one person maintaining that the other variant names preclude including the one more widely used one (which explains another) at the top of the article. I don't see anyone else agreeing with this position. I don't have access to OED search, but I note the internet abounds in Oxford dictionaries and usage guides both defining "automobile" simply as "car" and using it, rather than "car", in examples of American usage. It also occurs to me that another major justification for putting it up top, in concert with the hatnote, is that users of British English may not be immediately familiar with it; I wasn't. Time for an RfC, I fear (I hate bothering people to such an extent): what's the feeling, should the proposed wording simply be what the article has sometimes had, "or automobile", or the parenthetical with explanation, "(or, particularly in North America, automobile)"? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dictionaries do not analyse commonality of usage, only the nature of the words themselves. So yes, if you click on 'automobile', you will see that it defines it as a car. Likewise, if you click on 'car', it will define it as a 'motor car'. You can use the OED links I provided to find this information, but I suppose perhaps you've not looked at them. In any case, the thing is, no one else has provided a single source to position, nor a guideline, nor a policy. Wikipedia consensus is based on guidelines, policies, and sources. As none of you have bothered to so much as provide a shred of justification for 'automobile' being in the lead beyond your own personal feelings and conjecture, your opinions are irrelevant. Again, you've not provided a source for this nonsense about 'one more widely used one'. Where are you RS supporting this assertion? And I don't be WP:OR, I mean an RS that passes WP:V that says that 'automobile' is a 'more widely used' variant' than 'motor car', or that it is 'often' or 'commonly' used in America. The hatnote has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Hatnotes exist because a word can refer to more than one thing, but still have a 'primary meaning'. 'Automobile' does, which is why there is a disambiguation page at Automobile (disambiguation). If this page did not exist, there would be no hatnote. The hatnote only exists to ensure that people looking for automobile get to the right page, as they may be looking for other things listed on the DAB page. It again, has nothing to do with usage or anything else. If people are confused about the naming, putting one word in the lead is not going to solve that. They'll have to read the 'names' section, where that matter is dealt with in detail. Therefore, none of what your saying is making sense. I may be one person at the moment, but I don't have the support of people following an editor around with a grudge. I may be one person, but at least my position is supported by sources, guidelines, and policies. That's how Wikipedia works, which you should know, as an administrator. Unfortunately, we've moved far away from that ideal, and instead have been forced to endure the personal crusades of people like you who do not understand that one's personal perception of the importance of one word is irrelevant in relation to how we display content here. RGloucester — ☎ 14:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Er, where do you think I tried to look up "automobile" from? And if dictionaries don't analyse commonality of usage, why are you relying on an OED statement to say that "automobile" is less used now, chiefly in commercial contexts? Sorry you don't feel I'm making sense. You may be right, but I'm not persuaded by your arguments, so I'd like to determine consensus on other than your say-so. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC) (non-administrator, by the way).

Because, as I said, they analyse the words and their usage, but not 'commonality'. In other words, they will note whether a word appears in a formal, colloquial, or other register, but they will not say that 'this word is very common', which is not very quantifiable and not relevant to a dictionary in any case. The matter of 'commonality' and 'register' are different. The OED clearly marks 'automobile' as ' Chiefly N. Amer.' and 'Now chiefly in formal, commercial, or journalistic contexts, car being the usual word in informal and spoken English'. In other words, 'automobile' is not a colloquial or normal word to use in regular speech. It is a formalism. If you ask the average American, 'Is that your automobile parked over there?', they will most likely look at you funny (I know this from personal experience, as a Briton who lives in America). That isn't how people speak, which is why it is listed as a formal variant. 'Car' is the usual word, and we can take the dictionary's word for that. Look at the definition of 'car', since I did not link that one before. The definition given is 'motor car'. Look at 'motor car', and the definition of what a car is in given in full. And yes, 'automobile' is also listed at the end of the car definition...but, of course it would be. The important thing is that 'motor car' is most specifically not labelled as 'chiefly formal', and indeed, is also given a formal definition in legislation in the way 'automobile' is not. The word has a great significance, then, to speakers of British English and Commonwealth variants, even if it is not as common in speech as 'car', just as 'automobile' is not. There simply is no basis for the assertion that 'motor car' is either somehow less common or significant than 'automobile', and furthermore, I think there is also no basis for the strange assertion that there are people who will understand the word 'automobile' but not know what a 'car' is. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah no, the opposite—"automobile" requires some explanation. And isn't "chiefly in ... contexts, car being the usual word ..." a statement of relative commonality? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it is a statement about 'register'. 'What register does a word appear in?' is the question answered by that note. It doesn't make any statement about how common the word is in formal, commercial, journalistic contexts, &c., relative to the word 'car', or any such thing like that, it simply says that the word is chiefly used in certain contexts, i.e. in certain registers, as opposed to others. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

[1] "The Etymology of Car From Carrus". Don's Mobile Glass. 28 July 2016. Retrieved 2016-07-28.

[1]