Talk:Department of motor vehicles

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

DMV101.org

Department of Motor Vehicle Info for all 50 U.S. States.

This site which has just been added with this edit by 68.52.80.75 (talk · contribs) is the latest example of what in my own experience seems to be a growing trend in WP "External links" sections: Potemkin villages. Rl 08:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) Rl 08:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DMV101.org has just been added with this edit by 68.52.80.75 (talk · contribs) Although this website is still under construction as of 8 SEPT 05 it will bring informative DMV info on all 50 U.S. states to those wishing to save time. Drivers License, Automobile registration, Auto insurance and more info can be accessed at dmv101.org

[posted by 68.42.80.75]

To the anonymous IP user: Please do not delete legitimate criticism posted by editors. If you continue to do so, it will be construed as evidence of bad faith and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Furthermore, please note that relatively few Internet users will be interested in a site edited by someone who cannot even spell "informative" or "automobile registration" properly. --Coolcaesar 02:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha. You fixed the spelling in your post. Very good. Now if you could only fix your lousy Web site! I hope your site is or will be legitimate, and not one of those Mafia-operated monsters that is designed primarily to emit viruses, backdoors, and Trojan horses (as a large number of poorly written Web sites seem to be nowadays). --Coolcaesar 03:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No corporate big wigs or Mafia types here just an ordinary person trying to create something of good use. I surely wasn't looking to get slammed by you or any one else. As http://DMV101.org is still a work in progress please save your criticism until you view the finished product. As I surmize Coolcaesar must be involed with a competing site to bring such critical remarks.As to the scandalous remarks about viruses,and such that is just totally bogus.Also If you consider DMV101 to be so lousy eloborate such as I am open to allways improving dmv101.

DMV by mail

It says that now you can do most of the DMV business by mail. Doesn't that mean that now, instead of having to form long lines for hours to talk to an ineficient and humorless employee at the DMV, you get to form a long line and wait for hours to talk to a humorless employee at the Post Office? ;-)

Dullfig 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny (I'm being sarcastic). I don't know about your area, but most people in California just use public mailboxes (or the slots in the post office if they are afraid of mail thieves). Most states have increasingly shifted all the routine paperwork over to mail or online so that only the really important stuff like driving tests has to be done in person. --Coolcaesar 09:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke... Dullfig

--Suggestion--

Could we maybe get like a history of the DMV (how is was founded and when...etc.)?

That could be kind of hard. I don't think any historians specialize in that area. Most historians of automobiles tend to specialize in manufacturers or inventors, and most historians of government tend to specialize in more glamorous agencies like the U.S. Department of Defense. --Coolcaesar 07:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about government agencies, not companies

This article is about government agencies that are responsible for driver licenses and/or vehicle registrations. It is not about companies or corporations that happened to be named or abbreviated as DMV. If you want to write about such a company, create a new article. --hulmem (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

According to Implied consent, all states have implied consent laws, but this appears to contradict what's written here. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References in popular culture section needed?

Considering how popular culture refers to DMV service, perhaps a section on popular culture is relevant. I haven't gone looking for relevant sources, so I can't yet create it myself. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SEWilco: Whoa. I came here to suggest the exact same thing. I think something like "Department of Motor Vehicles in American Popular Culture" could be its own article. But I'm not too sure where to start. Any seasoned Wikipedians care to chime in? Webster100 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a section or article would be a useless collection of trivial drivel, as are most "In popular culture" sections. --hulmem (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is an atrocious mess

The only language which actually uses the term "Department of Motor Vehicles" is American English. Even Canadian English doesn't really have it, because the Canadian provincial governments are so insane that they give driver licensing and registration to quasi-public corporations. Any objections before I trim this down to the United States and Canada? --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that over a month has elapsed without any objections. Unfortunately I am too busy to trim down this mess right now, but I am noting the issue for anyone interested. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a year and a half since I last looked at this and there's something wrong when the section on equivalent agencies in other countries is getting way too long. Any objections before I pull that out into a separate article? --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension of my license

My doctor wants to know how can she write me a letter do to my medical state why my license was suspended? Momise.buxton49 (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Driver's license Replacement

I am trying to get a duplicate driver's license I am disabled and I cannot come to your location my original driver's license doesn't expire until 2026 2601:CA:200:7190:A5CF:3ACB:EB75:6A2B (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph to explain other common names

The intro included the sentence block-quoted below, which was then deleted because: "This is duplicating content on a complex issue already explained at length in the body of the article".

Depending on the location, the "DMV" can also be known as "division of motor vehicles," "driver and motor vehicle services," "registry of motor vehicles," or "bureau of motor vehicles" (BMV).

I think it should be added back. It's highly pertinent, the intro is anyway short enough, it's far easier to find in the intro (the rest is rather messy with its mixture of tables and blocks of text), and in some cases it's all one needs to know (like me).

FWIW, the initial version of that sentence was included in the article for more than 2 years (some 75 edits ago) and no one found it to be a problem.

galenIgh 23:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor with twenty years of experience, I can tell you that the problem with allowing such summary paragraphs is that everyone wants their variation on the phrase included in the lead, with the result that the lead inevitably ends up duplicating the content of the body of the article. There is no principled way to distinguish between one variant over another. So we end up with two articles in one, which no one has the time or energy to clean up.

This was what happened, for example, with Back-to-back film production. We had a massive problem for a long time with editors fighting over whether the list of films produced back-to-back should be in that article or another article, with some editors trying to mention a few of the most important films in the article itself. That list soon ended up nearly as long as the "list" article because everyone was fighting over how their film was just as important as the others. It took a long time to reach the current consensus that the list should be entirely relegated to a second article and not duplicated in the primary article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a potentially-infinite list of films here. It's a very finite list and hasn't grown much in 2 years. The sentence is 30 words. Even if it grows to 60 words it's not a big deal. And it's not like the main function of the article body is a list of synonyms.

Maybe include in the intro a variant only if it's used in at least N places? Or limit the list to the 5 most popular names.

I don't think a reader can't easily or efficiently parse what's going in the article body. galenIgh 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's my point exactly. Readers can easily and efficiently parse the article body. So there's no need to duplicate its contents and have never-ending edit wars over which variant names to include. If you were trying to say that you think a reader cannot easily or efficiently parse what's going on in the article body, I respectfully disagree. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a reader. :) galenIgh 01:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]