Jump to content

Talk:Car/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

RfC about including the word 'automobile' in the first sentence of the lead paragraph

Dennis Bratland's idea of using "A car (or automobile) is a..." has a clear consensus for the lede. The guideline can be argued either way, but if nothing else, the guideline allows for exceptions and this is a prime example of when consensus rules the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following be added to the first sentence of the lead paragraph, after the bolded word car: "(in North America often automobile)"? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support. The term is sufficiently common as an alternative in at least North American English that the article was actually created at that title, and the article has a hatnote referring to both terms. While "auto" is readily comprehensible as an abbreviated form, and "motor car" is both readily comprehensible from "car" and less common, "automobile" is both regionally common and less obvious in meaning to speakers of other varieties of English. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – In accordance with MOS:LEADALT, if there are more than 2-3 variants, it is recommended that these be moved to a sub-section to avoid cluttering the lead. If such a section it exists, it explicitly says not to put these back in the lead. There is such a section in this article, and thus no reason to give special treatment to 'automobile', to the exclusion of other variants. The assertions made by Yngvadottir above have no basis in reliable sources, and thus fail WP:V. I've asked repeatedly for such, but he simply continues to repeat the same old tune about how 'motor car' is less common than 'automobile', and also that 'automobile is less obvious in meaning to speakers of other varieties of English'. Of course, if such people exist, they can read the relevant section on naming that we already have, which explains what an 'automobile' is and where the word came from in more detail than could ever be done by randomly tossing it in the lead. More importantly, the proposal by Yngvadottir includes an unsourced assertion that cars are 'often' called 'automobiles' in North America. Unless a source is provided that says that this is the case, it cannot be included in the article per WP:V. The OED lists 'automobile' as a chiefly American formal variant, saying that 'car' is the usual word there as well. This is also my personal experience. The various links for the OED were provided in the section above, so one can confirm for oneself that this is the case. In any case, there is no good reason to deviate from the guidelines here, and even less reason to include unsourced nonsense in this article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Meh — Say only "A car (or automobile) is a..." and leave it at that. No need for specifics about which regions use automobile and which use car. When you stuff all this fussy word usage in the first sentence, it becomes unreadable. See Truck for a heinous example *barf*. That one should say only "A truck (or lorry) is a..." and hold off getting into the weeds of who says what word how often and with what degree of irony down in the article body. There are several Featured Article examples at WP:FA: Borscht, Diamond, Giraffe, Holden. The lead should be clear and simple, and readable, and include only carefully selected levels of detail. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
This cannot be done. This is a direct violation of the guidelines (WP:LEADALT), and provides no demonstrable benefit to the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 21:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Expand further discussion (1)
Cannot? But it is done. It's done in Holden. And Giraffe. And Zenobia. And many, many other FAs. Anyone may read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Separate section usage and see that your interpretation of the MOS guideline (it's not even a policy) is simply wrong, in several ways. There are more than three alternative names, but only two, car and automobile, are significant enough to include in the lead. Even if there were three significant names, the guideline doesn't say we must expunge all but one from the lead. It says we can. It says we shouldn't stuff three or more alternative names back into the lead if we have an etymology section, but nobody is proposing moving three or more of them into the lead. Only one. As far as "demonstrable benefit", have you ever demonstrated anything being a benefit to a reader? How exactly do you expect anyone to demonstrate that it is beneficial? We might want to perform A/B testing as an true demonstration of the benefits of something, but we don't have the resources for that kind of thing, and even if we did, we wouldn't waste them on such a trivial question. "Demonstrable benefit" has never been a criterion for any Wikipedia decision. Instead, we use our reason and common sense. Reason and common sense says that a lot of extra words about which country uses car or automobile is not critical enough to belong in the lead sentence, and it harms readability. Reason and common sense also tells us that the reader needs to know they've landed on the right article; that automobile is not a separate article from car. We could say "Automobile redirects here" but that's wordy. Instead, "car (or automobile)" says the same thing, with fewer words, and with clarity. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
In all of those articles it looks like absolutely rubbish, and that's exactly the type of stuff that the guideline was written to prevent. Where are you getting this idea that 'only car and automobile' are significant enough to include in the lead? As I've debunked above, this is a nonsense, and is merely a fig leaf used by editors such as yourself to give this American formal variant priority over all over variants (such as 'motor car') without any basis in reliable sources. I agree that 'reason' and 'common sense' suggest that we should not stuff the lead with variants. That's why the guideline is as it is. That's why we've got a separate section, per the guideline. In so doing, we remove the alternative names from the lead, per the guideline. The question of 'readers being informed that they've landed at the right article' is solved by the hatnote that already exists. Indeed, this is a problem solved by hatnotes, not by bolding in the lead. Therefore, your proposal has a) no basis in reliable sources b) is in direct contravention of the guidelines and c) does not benefit the reader in anyway. It simply introduces redundant text, which is a direct harm to the reader in that it leads to the clutter that you say you do not like. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support But also would probably prefer simpler version, as above. Per discussion previously, objections are based on legalistic or even pettifogging interpretations of guidelines and on what individual users prefer, rather than on stopping for two seconds to try and simply think about how to simply and briefly include one common alternative name. It's really not exceptional, or at all confusing, to include a common alternative, which gives a more global view. Indeed, it seems obtuse not to. N-HH talk/edits 20:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
How exactly is adding one regional variant term into the lead, to the exclusion of other similar regional variants, providing a more global view, when 'car' is universally the most common term for the subject of this article across the globe? What you're implying is that 'car' is somehow not global, but this is exactly the opposite of the truth. RGloucester — ☎ 21:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Expand further discussion (2)
I'm not implying anything of the sort or asking for all "regional variants" (if they even exist as such; plus consensus seems to be towards not specifying "automobile" as North American). I'm just saying, like nearly everyone else, that we can choose to add what is probably the most common alternative name, as many, many articles here do, even when the main name is pretty universal. Seriously, take a step back here and ask yourself whether expending all this effort, and making others respond in kind, over excluding *one word* that would make the information in the opening sentence slightly more complete, and more familiar to some readers, is really productive. N-HH talk/edits 08:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a matter of principle. If editors here are allowed to continue to spew unsourced nonsense that is in direct contravention of guidelines/policies &c., then they will take that leeway as a sign that they can introduce more serious nonsenses elsewhere. You didn't answer my question, either. You said that adding 'automobile' would make the article 'more global'. I asked, why would including one regional variant in the lead make the article 'more global', when it would silence other regional variants? More importantly, 'car' is the 'global' term for the subject of this article, used universal everywhere. Truly, the article is already 'global', and what you suggest would be a reactionary move against this globalism toward an article that favours the perspective of one region over others. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The MoS says that when there are more than 2-3 alternative names, these should be put in a seperate section. That seperate section exists. It also says that when such a section exists, those names should not be restored to the lead. Why can't anyone read? I wonder. RGloucester — ☎ 14:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Expand further discussion (3) including WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR policies
There are upwards of 450,000 words in English. Every article can have more than three alternative names. We're only talking about significant alternative names, leaving banger, hooptie, heap, wreck, cage, and so on for the further down matter. Occam's Razor favors the hypothesis that comprehension is an issue for only one editor rather than a dozen. It could be the MOS ought to more accurately reflect the practice described by these editors and represented in so many FAs. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It should be clear that everyone can read what the MoS says, because everyone's referred directly to it in explaining over and over why we don't have to follow quite such a literal and legalistic reading of it or whether it even applies, as we're talking about significant and significantly different alternatives. When you're the only one taking a position about a relatively trivial and totally subjective issue, and are reduced to coming in on every comment, it's probably time to step away. Anyway, aren't we getting to a snow-ish close in favour of adding "or automobile" without "in North America"? N-HH talk/edits 15:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
The word 'significant' does not appear in the guideline. Regardless, as I've said above, the way you are defining 'significant' doesn't make any sense, as it excludes 'motor car', the standard long-form name for cars in British English, and other Commonwealth varieties. I understand that you fellows feel as if because you have a complex of people supporting your nonsense that you are right, but that's not the origin of rightness. Specifically, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by adherence to reliable sources, guidelines, and policies. I've provided sources, and I've cited the guideline. None of you can say the same. However, like much in the world today, it seems that the mob shall rule. The mob shall have what it wants and deserves, and so I've changed the article to be in adherence with the outcome desired by those above. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@RGloucester: No you haven't; you've changed it to "An automobile, autocar, motor car, or simply a car,". That's WP:POINT. Nobody has argued for returning the article to the title "automobile", and nobody has advocated including any terms at the start of the lead other than "car" and "automobile" (in that order). I apologise for finally using "you"; this is wilfully misreading what others have said in the discussion, not to mention clogging the opening in precisely the manner you have previously objected to. Please revert yourself. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I shan't revert anything. If we're not going to use the 'alternative section' suggested by the guideline, the 'significant' alternative names should be included in the lead, per said guideline. There is no countenance for anything else. RGloucester — ☎ 19:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to give too much thought to the significance of any terms besides car and automobile. It's no contest. Motorcar or autocar are so far out of use that we can almost forget about them. Car is the primary term, automobile is a distant second, and all the rest are footnotes.

Anyway, you should just let it go. You've won over zero editors. Zero. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to 'win over' editors. This is not a contest nor a political campaign. What you need to do is accept what reliable sources say, and indeed, what guidelines and policies say. "Motor car" is not out of use. "Motorcar" is a variant of "motor car" that is very rare. Of course, the OED itself says this, and I've cited sources to that effect above. The significance of it is clear, if one reads the OED entry I provided. You are simply doing WP:OR with a Google Books search, which does not determine "significance". Significance is determined by reliable sources...i.e. if reliable sources say a word is significant it is. You don't get to do WP:OR and say that because you did a Google Books search a word is insignificant. More importantly, using an obscure out-of-use variant of "motor car" shows the low level of vigorousness that one can expect from someone who is more concerned with "persuading" people to follow his or her point-of-view. RGloucester — ☎ 05:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
[1] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, WP:OR. You need a reliable source that says that word is insignificant before you can call it one. You cannot infer that from a Google Ngrams chart. Perhaps read the OED pages I provided above? The significance of "motor car", at the least, is clear. Whenever the question of "ENGVAR" comes up, someone always shows a chart or search that shows that the American variant has more usage, but that's natural...there are more American English speakers. However, only including an American variant to the exclusion of the British one does not provide a global worldview, which is required. That's why WP:ENGVAR was written the way it was, to ensure that British English, Commonwealth varieties, and even other less common varieties do not get ignored merely because there are fewer people who are native speakers of those varieties. RGloucester — ☎ 14:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read the first paragraph of Wikipedia:No original research. Find the bit that you've missed.

The Google NGram viewer is telling us that car is overwhelmingly preferred over automobile, in both US English, and in UK English. Motor car is far less common, even in UK english. The OED is correct that until about 1915, automobile wasn't used as much in the UK, but that's no longer the case. Anyone can search of any sample of UK books or newspapers, and see that hardly anybody bothers writing out the cumbersome "motor car" or three syllable automobile because why would they? If car is not in use many, many times more often than motor car in the UK, you ought to be able to detect it. Instead, everywhere we turn, we see evidence that the NGram graph is correct. Page 109-110 a History of the Motor Car by UK author Steven Parissen (director of Compton Verney museum, visiting fellow at Oxford -- which is British enough for me) explains that the OED's gloss is far too simplistic, and ultimately wrong, or at least, far out of date. In the UK, they say car, and sometimes automobile, and not so often any more, motor car.

One really has to stop and consider that if you have several people telling you that you're misreading MOS:LEAD, and nobody at all thinks you're correct, maybe it's time to stop fixating on an idea and consider maybe you missed something? And if you're misreading the NOR policy so badly that you think original research is not allowed on talk pagesm and as a tool to settle content disputes? Well then, maybe it's time to listen to others, rather than refuse to give an inch. If you can't at least admit you have misunderstood the NOR policy, then something is seriously wrong here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't misunderstood anything. You think you have the standing to say that the OED is wrong? Who do you think you are? You don't get to contest reliable sources, and certainly not the most authoritative dictionary of the English language. Google Ngrams is a useful tool, but it is not a complete analysis of usage, nor definitive evidence. If you look at the "British English" results for "automobile", i.e. the actual books brought up by Ngrams, you'll see that a lot of them are actually American. This is a known problem with Ngrams. More importantly, inferring significance from a Ngrams chart is by definition OR. The chart does not claim to display 'significance', merely incidents of usage of certain words across a period of time in a set of books collated by Google. OR is "fine" for talk page conjecture, yes, but it cannot influence article content, which is what you are doing here. I don't know why you think that book supports your position. Mr Parissen clearly states that "By the 1920s, 'motor car' had become standard in the UK, if not the US" (p. 110). This is of course exactly what the OED says on the matter...
"Car" is indeed the default word in Britain, as it is in America and everywhere else in the world. I was the one who initially put forth that case on the basis of WP:COMMONALITY, which eventually led to this article being moved from the nonsensical "automobile". However, even though "motor car" is not said much anymore, much like "automobile" in America is not, it still possess an importance significance for British readers, because of its legacy of use, and because of its status as the defining word in British legislation on cars. I never put forward the idea that "motor car" was a commonly spoken word. I said that it is a word with significance in its own right, which is something quite different from being commonly used. The same applies to automobile. No one in America says "I parked my automobile over there", or anything like that, just like no one in Britain says "I parked by motor car over there". However, both words have an important significance in both countries...why? Because of their history and legacy of usage, which is of course the thing the OED describes. For this reason, if "automobile" is to appear in the lead, then "motor car" by definition must follow. If we are speaking of significance, reliable sources document the significance of both. I have never contested the significance of "automobile". I contested the idea that "automobile" is so significant as to negate all other variants, such as "motor car". As we are not following the alternative section usage part of the guideline, for reasons unknown, we've got to include at least "motor car "and "automobile". RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Clear as day. Plain English. This has reached the point of obsession, fixation on winning. The words are right there, in black and white, unmistakable. But yeah, lets sit here and pretend they don't say what they say.

How dare I say the OED is wrong??? I have to laugh. The OED is sometimes wrong. So what? They are not staffed like they used to be, you know, back when they were selling books. No source is 100% right 100% of the time. We use reliable sources, not omniscient sources. Or perhaps the OED doesn't quite mean what you think it means. We've seen a lot of that, right? Yes motor car was once dominant in the UK, as all our sources agree, but it's fallen out of use, surpassed by automobile, and utterly swamped by car. Blame the evils of Americanization. Sorry. I wish it were not so.

Dare I ask, who are YOU to look at a half dozen or more Featured Articles and scoff "in all of those articles it looks like absolutely rubbish"!? What that says is you have no respect for Wikipedia's process of consensus. Wikipedia's most dedicated editors collaborate to create and judge the very best of our articles, and you tell us they're rubbish. Really? You're seriously thinking an admin is going to come along, read these 8+ editors who think you're wrong, and your weird claims that I can't use original research to make a point on a talk page, and Featured Articles are "rubbish", and that admin is going to say, "Ah! The consensus result of this RfC is to say car alone, no other words." That's the consensus of this RfC? Really? Do you really think that? It's not a vote, no, but really? It's laughable.

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. Your theories make a certain sense. It just so happens that's not what the MOS really means, and your theory departs from the expert consensus on the usage of car, automobile, and motor car.

There are two most common synonyms, car and automobile, and they belong in the lead, mentioned briefly without a lot of distracting details, like lists of countries that use a variant. The dozens of other synonyms for car/automobile, including motor car, motor, machine, wheels, heap, crate, banger, old banger, jalopy, limo, hooptie, horseless carriage, loco mobile, petrocar, autobot, auto, autowain, diamond, pneumobile, pickup truck, station wagon, taxi, transportation, truck, van, bug, buggy, compact,four-wheeler, go-cart, hardtop, hatchback, heap, junker, lemon, ride, sedan, tub, bucket of bolts, clunker, gas guzzler, oil burner, jitney, land yacht, cream puff, roadster, and beater can be given their due regard down in the etymology section. Every noun in English, if it has an article on Wikipedia, has dozens of little-used synonyms, slang or formal. English is like that. We put the significant ones in the lead, and the obscure ones (motor car) down in the body. The MOS:LEAD guidelines, if applied in this tortured, overwrought interpretation, would make it impossible to ever put a 2-3 variant terms in the lead. Consensus says no to that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You, as a Wikipedia editor with no standing whatsoever, do not get to say that the OED is wrong. Of course, errors may well appear in the OED, as errors appear everywhere. However, we rely on reliable sources to tell us whether there is an error. You are not the judge of the OED. You are no one. You have no standing to make such a determination. That's something for reliable sources to do, and you are not a reliable source (as even Wikipedia is not). If what you say is not verifiable, it has no meaning.
The idea that 'motor car' has fallen out of use is absurd, even more absurd is the idea that it has been surpassed by 'automobile' in British usage or that it is 'obscure' and comparable to tosh like 'land yacht', &c. I've provided sources to the contrary, you've provided not a damn thing other than WP:OR Ngrams, which are not a reliable source or suitable for this purpose. I'm sure you don't care about all the false positives Ngrams bring up (take a look at the results yourself, as I said above). Ngrams is a useful tool, but its problems are many. It cannot be used as a source for article content. Basing your whole argument on Ngrams, defying reliable secondary sources with such a level of renown as OED, is absurd, and is contrary to all Wikipedia policies on reliable source usage.
I never said 'featured articles were rubbish'. I said that stuffing alternative names in the lead of an article looks like rubbish, and that's why we have a guideline that recommends an alternative way of detailing alternative names. Indeed, we should not routinely put 2-3 variant terms in the lead, if it is possible to do otherwise. Doing so 'looks like rubbish', is clunky, confusing, and doesn't allow either the alternative names or the actual subject of the article to be treated properly in the text. Of course, again, that's why we have a guideline that says this very thing.
Of course, it is clear to me that you dwell in the realm of opinion, not in realm of reality or fact. Your only concern is to validate your ego, so as to proclaim that your voice has value. Indeed, the mere act of your writing here is only a feeble attempt at deluding yourself into believing that your Ngrams search and anecdotal knowledge of the 'obscurity' of the word 'motor car' are on par with the rigour of the OED. What self-important rubbish. This is often the case on Wikipedia, isn't? People come here with their narrow little world views, won't look outside them, and try to push them into Wikipedia articles to generate some sort of proof that what they believe to be true, only what they've seen with their own eyes, is right. Yes, because you wrote a featured article on Wikipedia, you are now greater than the OED! Splendid! Bravo! Utter tosh. And, of course, you take pride in the way you find allies here, all of a similar ilk. Fortunately for us all, Wikipedia has policies and processes that are meant to prevent such abuses of the encylopaedia. That's why 'consensus' is not a vote. Consensus is rooted in policies and guidelines for the very precise reason that an encylopaedia that anyone can edit can be so easily abused as to push world views of a select few individuals like yourself. There are cliques, demographics, that reign in Wikipedia, and these try very hard to ensure that no truth other than the one that they themselves generate is allowed to be included. However, I shan't allow it. The good editors of Wikipedia will ensure that you will not succeed in your quest to defy reliable sources, to defy the very basis of this encylopaedia, to build a monument to your ignorance and ego. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Dennis Bratland adduced a useful source in the Parissien book. There's also this, where "automobile" is used right alongside "car" to explain British usages. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
What exactly is the Parissien source useful for? It says "By the 1920s, 'motor car' had become standard in the UK, if not the US" (p. 110). This is exactly what the OED says. It also says that 'automobile' was "particularly common in America..." We already know this, of course. It doesn't say anything that the OED doesn't about the significance of either term. You say it is a useful source, but a source for what statement? Please clarify. The second one is even more vexing. What is it supposed to prove? That "automobile" means "car"? What else is new? We already know this. That 'motor car' is a Britishism, that 'automobile' is an Americanism? That 'car' is the most common term in both countries? Again, it says nothing about the usage of the word, nor about the significance of it. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. RGloucester — ☎ 21:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Standing? Lot of good all your standing has done you here, hasn't it? Getting your ass handed to you in spite of your towering "standing" above a mere, uh, whatever the hell I am. What is your title anyway? Senior Editor III? Impressive! But I'm not here to taunt anyone or laugh at their pomposity. In all seriousness, discounting other editors because of their supposed "standing" or "rank" or whatever it is you think you have over me is well understood as a violation of the Ownership of content policy, and telling an editor their opinions don't count, that "You are no one. You have no standing to make such a determination" is quite beyond the limits of the policy of assuming good faith, and civility. Besides the unacceptable personal behavior, you're really directly attacking the cornerstone of Wikipedia when you want to push others aside because they are not equal in standing to you. Nupedia failed because it gave greater standing to some editors over others. Wikipedia works precisely because none of us has any real standing.

Google 'OED errors' some time if you want to read some amusing tales. I'm especially fond of the OED's 'YouTuber' and 'twerk' howlers, but the OED editors are only human. It's particularly unfair to the OED's hardworking lexicographers to read so much into short phrases like "chiefly American", and to do so in such a narrow, rigid, literalist way. It leaves no room for nuance.

Your servant,
One Of The Good Editors, Master Editor Illustrious Looshpah Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, Mr Bratland, as is not surprising. I never claimed to have any standing. I have none. We are compatriots in our nothingness, if only in that. The only entities with standing to make such judgements as you tried to make above are reliable sources, and neither you nor I hold this status. I'm not surprised that you would make this error. It is quite clear that you are obsessed with the nature of your own status, or else you would not be pressing this matter in the way that you are. Again, of course the OED, like any publication, or any human-originated item, will have errors. However, we, as compatriots in our nothingness, do not get to determine whether something written in the OED is an error. That's something for reliable sources to do. If you have a reliable source that says, "this piece of the OED is in error", and that source is known to have a reputation for vigour that is equivalent to that of the OED, &c., then of course we can say "the OED is in error", or perhaps, "x source says that the OED is in error". However, you can't personally analyse the situation from your own frame of view and declare the OED to be in error. You do not have that standing, nor do I. You might want to read the Wikipedia policy on WP:RS, specifically the part on what makes a source reliable. The most relevant portion reads "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". Do you understand, Mr Bratland, what I am trying to say? RGloucester — ☎ 00:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, don't understand you. Once again, you're confusing the rules for article content with the rules for talk page discussion.

Can't personally analyze the situation? Yes I can. I'm doing it right now. I don't know where you get these made up rules that I can't do this and I can't do that. Watch me.

The OED doesn't definitively assert that 'automobile' is used less than 'motor car', nor that 'motor car' is a significant term any more. But even if it did, other sources show that's not the case. We have sources that go into much greater detail than the two word 'chiefly American' note, using quantitative counts of word usage, and a historical account of the various words used for car over the years. You say I can't make this argument, yet here I am, making that argument. Is anyone allowed to argue the OED is wrong? Of course they are. People do it all the time. Besides a conservative and highbrow literary bias, the OED is simply not omniscient. Wikipedia's common name and other article title guidelines are far broader than the OED, by including much more vulgar source texts. The OED is fine. It's better at being the OED than anything else. But it's not the last word. It's merely one source. Wikipedia has no policy that the OED trumps all other sources. Perhaps you should propose one? (lol)

Now you say my arguments don't meet the standard of Identifying reliable sources? So what? This is an RfC. The RS standard is for the article namespace. Just like the NPOV policy: I don't have to be neutral. An editor is free to cite whatever they like, with whatever bias, with whatever unencyclopedic tone they want, in a talk page discussion. Other participants can evaluate my argument and my sources on their merits. My talk page citations don't have to meet any RS bar. Even if an editor's citations all do meet the reliable source standard, that's no guarantee that others will !vote in agreement. This is no different than mixing up the NOR article content policy with the rules for talk page participation. Simply comparing the frequency of word use on Google NGrams isn't original research, by the way, but even if it is, so what? All that counts is if editor consensus agrees or not. Any source may be cited in a discussion, and any amount of original research is allowed in a talk page discussion.

What's not allowed is your repeated personal attacks. I'd cut that out if I was you. Also try to accept that you don't always get your way on Wikipedia. I've been a minority voice in so many discussions, pleading that it's not a vote and asking the closer to do more than tally votes. But we all have to accept that when not even one single editor is swayed, and one after another after another stands up to tell us we're wrong, we have to let it go, gracefully. The "good editors" don't always have to agree with us to be good editors. Sometimes we're just wrong. I make mistakes all the time. Perhaps you have been mistaken? Ever? It's OK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You can analyse all you want, but such analysis cannot be published in Wikipedia articles. Whereas the statement "automobile is a chiefly American variant" can be published in a Wikipedia article with a citation to the OED entry attached, your "opinion" cannot. Therefore, your "opinion" is useless with regard to the article's content, and is hence meaningless. I beg your pardon, but what sources have you provided that "go into much greater detail than the two word 'chiefly American' note, using quantitative counts of word usage, and a historical account of the various words used for car over the years"? If you are talking about the one Parissien source, it does say that 'automobile' was chiefly American, and it does say that 'motor car' became the standard term in Britain by the 1920s. It does not say anything about the current significance or usage of either word. If you believe that it does, cite the exact sentence that you are referring to. If you cannot do this, this source does not support the assertion that you are making. I never said that the "OED trumps all other sources". It is simply the case that no other reliable secondary source has been provided to contradict the OED.
Once again, the true intent behind your crusade here has been revealed. Your goal is to "sway" editors to your side, to form a complex of people that agree with your "opinion", a back-slapping legitimisation of your narrow world view. That's not an encyclopaedic endeavour, and I suggest that if that is your goal, you form a social club of some kind, instead of participating in Wikipedia. What matters is not "if editor consensus agrees or not", because if that was true, Wikipedia would turn into a propaganda outlet that published opinion pieces rooted in the 'tyranny of the majority' of the very small and non-diverse demographic that tends to edit here. What matters is adherence to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and our various other policies. WP:CONSENSUS says as much. Wikipedia only publishes what reliable sources say, not original research (original analysis of primary sources like Google Ngrams) by Wikipedia editors. Even if 90% of Wikipedia editors agreed to publish something that clearly violated WP:NPOV, that item could not be published. And thank God, too, that this is the case. RGloucester — ☎ 01:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I want the lead to only say "A car (or automobile) is a..." What on earth do you imagine I'm trying to "publish"? The "(or automobile)" part? That's what this is over. You're spewing personal attacks and imagining a cabal of malicious editors over your deep conviction to expunge the menacing "(or automobile)" that threatens to destroy Wikipedia and all that is right and honorable in the world.

Is it possible to want the lead to include "(or automobile)" with no malice or dastardly conspiracy afoot? Could an editor prefer to keep "(or automobile)" and still be, you know, a decent human being? Just hold that opinion? I guess there's no chance one could fail to accept the OED as holy writ without being an agent of Cosmic Evil, eh? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you desire. The reason why what you desire is problematic is because you've not provided any reliable sources that support your assertion that "automobile" is the only significant variant, or that "motor car" is an obscure term on par with the likes of "petrocar". Ignoring the matter of WP:LEADALT and alternative section usage, if you'd accepted something like "An automobile, motor car, or simply a car", I would've also accepted that suggestion. It would've been equitable and made sense, even if it is not in compliance with the relevant guidelines. Instead, in order to get what you want, i.e. giving "automobile" an elevated level of significance that does not appear to be supported by reliable sources, you've gone to the ends of the earth to try and obliterate "motor car", the 'standard' (quote Parissien) British variant that has a visceral history and significance for speakers of British and Commonwealth varieties of English, on par with that of "automobile" for American English speakers. This is something that I cannot accept, and you've still failed to provide any secondary sources that support your assertion on this matter. Matters of language are always heady ones, for language is what gives human lives meaning. Therefore, one sees me proclaiming as I do, in such a grand fashion, the gravity of your actions. I apologise for the appearance and cadence of my linguistic expression, but such was granted to me without my consent, and I therefore have no choice but to reside within it. In any case, I hope you can understand what I've been trying to say. RGloucester — ☎ 02:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
"Cannot accept"? But what if the RfC is closed with that result: "A car (or automobile) is a..."? What then? More edit warring? A new discussion venue? I'm not commenting right now to win this argument because I think it was a foregone conclusion days ago. But if I'm wrong, I can live with that. I don't expect to always get my way. Right now, I'm just trying to find out from you if you will respect a consensus outcome, or if you will work to undermine it. There's an accepted path for dispute resolution, and there's stonewalling. Are you going to stonewall if you don't get your way? Or will you drop the stick? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that my behaviour should be your concern. I'm very capable of accepting the consequences of my own actions. I do wonder if you can do the same. If such a false reality as the one you suggest were to be projected onto the screens of millions of people right across this world, the person harmed would not be me, but you, for you would have to carry the deep guilt of enacting a great misinformation and epistemic injustice to your very end. Even if you fail to consciously acknowledge such guilt, it will remain embedded within your soul until you repent. Again, I ask, please think of your actions, and reconsider all of the information I have provided to you. It's for your sake, and for the sake of those you intend to mislead, not mine. RGloucester — ☎ 02:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Soul? I think we can all agree that if I support saying "A car (or automobile) is a..." then my soul was sold off long ago, and I'm but a husk, craven minion of the Great Darkness. No soul to stain with my complicity in the or-automobile-acaust. But the children? Perhaps I should think of the children... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you find this funny, as there is nothing humorous about it. I suppose you are lost, for now. However, our actions will always return to us in one form or another, as I'm sure you must know somewhere in your soul, which yes, does exist, regardless of what harm you've done to it. I yield. RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You know there's 9 other editors whose souls you could throw these curses upon for this infamous (or automobile) misdeed. I'm sure they're looking forward to hearing from you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a confusing RfC, it doesn't make it clear what the alternatives are. The opening sentence should include the word "automobile", but should not aim to delimit where that word is used. Maproom (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The question is phrased as a yes/no choice to use a specific wording, and almost all the survey responses favor a slightly different wording, so the respondents aren't sure whether to say support, oppose, no, or meh. There is, however, a very clear consensus thus far, reading each response in detail. Don't read the threaded discussion. Long and boring. My fault. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment – Specifying "(in North America often automobile)" presumes/forces a particular outcome, which might be restrictive later on, and may not be the most ideal. The RFC/discussion has the potential to be more useful if it is just about including boldified automobile in some form (then if the outcome is for inclusion, then there can be a discussion/editing streak trying to find a place for automobile in some form). —Sladen (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Good GRIEF!!! talk about walls of text for a triviality! To add injury to insult,the lede as it stands is IMO hopelessly too long. It should be rewritten into a single shortish paragraph followed by an introductory section JonRichfield (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

123.136.118.247 (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
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. Sakura CarteletTalk 03:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

Bobeygyygfedmjd (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2018

r u editing dis now 34steves (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 18:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Section on the combustion vehicle (gas car)

Since there are enough electric hybrid and full-electric cars on the road to make it so that combustion engine vehicles are not the assumed de-facto standard anymore, so they should have their own section, which will explain that the technology is long-lived and because of various reasons becoming the lesser preferred compared to alternative fuel vehicles, particularly those which use electricity for fuel. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Category name change Cars -> Automobiles

There is a new discussion related to the renaming of the Catagory:Cars vs Catagory:Automobiles here [[2]]. Springee (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Car/Archive_6&oldid=1136591694"