Jump to content

Talk:Jump start (vehicle)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2006

[edit]

An easier way to start a car with a dead battery is to push it down a road and attain enough speed, put it in 2nd or 1st gear and then engage the engine with the clutch. This might not work with automatic transmission, and some people say it should not be done with cars with catalytic converters. I wonder why. Is this method of starting a car called a jump start also?

Push starting is covered in Manual transmission driving technique, under the section entitled "Starting the vehicle without an electric starter". The dire warnings about catalytic converter damage are bogus. --KazKylheku 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree with me when I say a note should be added about the quality of the jumper cables used? I had plenty of problems jump-starting my truck until I found out that the wire in the cable was 2mm thick (the rest was insulation to make it look thick. I solved the problem by buying 6 meters 4mm thick copper cable and cutting it in 2m long pieces that I stranded together and soldered to the alligator clips of my old jumpers. When buying such cables, care should be taken by taking a look at the thickness of the conductor (by looking under the cover on the clip) to make sure it is thick enough. For a reference, 2mm thick cable is used to wire domestic sockets and 8mm thick cable is used on 180A welding power sources (I had komayo brand cables with 2mm thick wire in them that wasn't even soldered to the clip and now I have 12mm thick, not counting the insulation on them, soldered cables that are a little bulky but get the job done and were cheap to make, since I only had to buy some wire)

Exploding Battery

[edit]

The article mentions that care must be taken due to a battery which might explode. Then, the last connection should be made to the chassis with the empty battery? In this case the persons face is most likely near the maybe exploding battery. After reading that I would suggest to make the last connection to the car giving jump-start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.14.9 (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

I see several things wrong wiht this article. Here's a short list

  1. It talks about push starting more than it does jump starting
  2. It reads like a how to guide

Please fix--12.72.53.246 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up. (you know, you could fix it, too!) How does it look now? --Wtshymanski 17:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Push Start

[edit]

I push-started a car without any assistance. So "required" is the wrong word. The car doesn't even have to be small or light, you can push it with the door open, jump in and rip out the clutch in first. 212.2.166.64 12:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think single-handed push starts require very favorable conditions and in my experience generally would be too dangerous to recommend. The last time I needed a jump start was on a curving downtown residential street with moderately high traffic; the vehicle was a Dodge Ram 250 pick-up truck with a diesel engine. I wasn't about to try pushing it even with someone to steer. Often in my part of the world, dead batteries co-incide with much snow on the ground, making even a light vehicle impossible to push single-handed. I have re-phrased the statement to reflect that sometimes a single-handed push start can work. (Glad you mentioned "clutch" - the proverbial bright 12-year old might wonder why only manual transmission cars are candidates to start this way.) --Wtshymanski 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider a place without traffic and you are going downhill all the way. Pushstarting could easily be achieved by a slight push or blow. 

PrinssiFO (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference that indicates a significant number of dead battery situations arise under such conditions? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voltages

[edit]

Should it be mentioned that some older cars have a positive chassis (frame) connection, and that care should be taken when jump starting as to connect the polarities correctly. And that the cars can not touch as this will change the connection circuitry, thus shorting something out (I'd have to think about it before making a more specific statement here). My parent's 1970 VW had its positive battery connected to the frame.IanCarmack (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned under Jump start (vehicle)#Voltage problem - does it need much more emphasis than that? Wikipedia isn't supposed to sound like a how-to manual,I agree if I was giving step-by-step instructions and cautions I'd make a more significant point about those few rare positive ground vehicles still out there (though chances are if you run into a vintage Bug on the street that needs a boost, the owner will be well aware of the issue). --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea you're probably right, the operator of the positive frame connection should know about this. And you are right, this is not an instruction manual. I'm new to this so thanks for the discussion. IanCarmack (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens when the Bug touches a standard car with a negative charged chassis or if a person touches a Bug and a standard car? PrinssiFO (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite it, and write it. This is not the place to speculate on hypothetical situations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Vehicles

[edit]

I added a short section on how military vehicles are jump started. I figure it's different enough from civilian vehicles to warrant a mention. When I get autoconfirmed, I can upload a picture of a slave receptacle from a CUCV --CatCube (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cig lighter

[edit]

Before proceeding, it should be noted that vehicles since 2010 generally do not come with cigarette lighter outlets. Cigarette lighters had already begun disappearing with the ashtray. But then why does that "cigarette lighter socket" still appear in every car? Due to market inertia, car accessories use that physical plug form factor. But car makers now saved money by changing the socket from heat-resistant connectors and heat-shielded socket mounts to have accessory outlets which look similar, but are not meant for burning hot cigarette lighters. To have an actual cigarette lighter outlet, this typically needs to be ordered as part of the options package at the time of the new car purchase. Accessory ports aren't made with the same heat-resistant materials that cigarette lighter ports have. Do not plug a cigarette lighter into an accessory port or you may have a plastic meltdown problem. AnimeJanai (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Many vehicles made since 1990 switch off the cigarette lighter outlet when the engine is stopped, making the technique unusable."

Can anyone confirm whether "many" vehicles since 1990 switch the cig lighter off when the engine is stopped?

If anything, modern vehicles do the opposite in the knowledge that the owners attach coolboxes, sattelite navigation systems, etc.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.156.246 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. My '86 Jetta and '95 Passat left the cigarette lighter on. My '04 Toyota shuts off the lighter outlet, as does my brother's Pontiac van (an '06, I think) (and our GPSes go dark when we do so). Most rental cars I've had in the last 10 years (unremembered as to make and model) shut off their cigarette lighter outlets; noticed this when trying to charge my laptop or camera on the road. My '73 Meteor, '81 Aries, dad's '84 Ford and mum's '76 LTD left the lighter on, but Mum's '00 Corolla shuts it off. I'd say "many" is acceptable language; not universal, but don't count on the lighter plug staying alive without checking it first. I don't think this is a Toyota quirk alone, judging by rental car experience.( Of course to make a truly unimpeachable Wikipedia-style case I'd have to find a printed reference for this and quote it; I don't have acccess to all these owner's manuals at the moment.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not convinced a greater percentage of new cars do it compared to old ones, at least european cars. Almost every car I can think of made today allows the cigaratte lighter to work when the vehicle is switched off, I have added a "citation needed" to the article. My experience is mainly in european-made cars however, so you're right it may differ from countries. 88.96.156.246 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observe Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources. The material is not a direct quote and not part of the BLP mess. Where does "original research" begin? Are editors not entitled to use common sense? The controversy is not well-founded. My learned co-editor can easily find many more articles with fewer and lower-quality refrences in more need of his tagging ability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also observe it says "Many" - not "ALL!" (Heaven forfend we ever have an unqualified statement of fact on the Wikipedia), not "Most", not even "a greater percentage" - just "many". This should be a suitably bland and equivocal statement to satisfy groupthink. --Wtshymanski (talk)
Are you claiming that the 2004 Owner's Manual,`Toyota Camry Solara, Toyota Publication No. OM33596U provides support for the statement "Many vehicles made since 1990 switch off the cigarette lighter outlet when the engine is stopped"? How is one owner's manual from one company supposed to support a generalization like that? I say "many" is just a weasel word to avoid having to provide a real citation for a generalization.
I've replaced the refimprove tag with nofootnotes. The problem with this article is that it makes a series of specific assertions without providing citations for where they came from. The one attempting to claim that one owner's manual allows you to generalize about all cars is a perfect example of why footnotes need to point to exactly where a fact comes from.--Dbratland (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One car is not all cars, one owner's manual is not all owner's manuals, and much of our knowledge is of a qualitative nature. The cited manual is an example, not an enumeration of all car models that turn off the cigarette lighter (now I've done it...List of passenger vehicles that turn off the cigarette lighter when the key is off is surely coming.) Of course it's a weasel word, but "a little inaccuracy sometimes avoids much explanation". No-one cares what exact percentage of cars turn off the cigarette lighter when turned off! It's not IMPORTANT. It doesn't need a citation, it's a perfectly common observation. Saying that all cars leave the cigarette lighter energized with the key off is clearly wrong, but there are many that do. Have you not seen this yourself?
If only we could bring this level of attention to articles which have NO references and NO fact checking. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone with even less life than I have is still watching this lamefest, here's what I found in a few minutes of Web browsing. Recall that the "debated" point is: do many cars switch off their cigarette lighters when the key is off? Do not be distracted by shiny things that are off-topic.
Prepare to read out. Read OUT:
So, in spite of the impeccable scholarship, learning, civility, knowledge of Wikipedia policy and tradition,and credentials on display here suppoorting the opposing and incorrect view, I assert once again that the sentence "Many cars turn off their cigarette lighter outlets when the key is removed from the ignition." is correct, and even more Wiki-important, verifiable beyond my own car sitting in my driveway. It's useful to the article because it identifies a case where the cigarette lighter booster cannot work; which I think is a valid thing to keep in this article. Note that I am not quoting blogs in support of such nebulous issues as say Obama's citizenship, where the blogger has no direct knowledge of the facts - I am quoting simple reports about individual experience with a cigarette lighter outlet in a particular vehicle. Surely common sense dictates that these reports are reasonably trustworthy!
Oftentimes I come away from a Wikipedia discusion thinking "Hey, I didn't know that!" - not this time, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the point you're getting at here -- I gather the issue you have is far larger than whether or not cigarette lighter outlets remain on or off and when they do, and which years that is the case for. I've changed the wording to the weaker assertion suggested in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion, which I think is more than sufficient to shed light on the question for the average encyclopedia reader. I have not read all of the sources you list here, mostly because it's clear that the majority of them do not contain generalizations about "many" vehicles, and they do not support the claim that there was a watershed year, 1990, when car wiring was widely changed. I suppose you have read all of these, so if one of them does in fact mention the year 1990 and say that after that point, many car's outlets are off when the key is of, then by all means, add the citation where it belongs.
I hate to have to ask this, but please don't reply with any more bombardment or off-topic complaints. I sincerely do not care about whatever it is that is bugging you so much; I'm only interested in editing this article. I thank you for not wasting my time any further with off topic comments. --Dbratland (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Waa waa waa. I think I am going to have to side with User:Wtshymanski on this one. For you to be bringing up this issue and calling him "uncivil" while at the same time suggesting he has some sort of mental issue amidst a claim that you're "only interested in editing", is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. Would you like a WP:NPA warning on your talk page? Wtshymanski has a good point, and I think it's that the cigarette lighter question at issue is non-contentious, undisputed, and so easily verified in real life (just like the claim that water is wet) so as to make needing some sort of explicit reference unnecessary. If every non-contentious sentence had to be referenced the way you seem to insist, then every article would have a list of references at least as long as the article itself. Reswobslc (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to

[edit]

So my plan is to start merging all the how-to content over into Automobile Repair/Jump start. There might not be much left after it's gone, except maybe a dictionary definition of 'jump start'. And then that will get moved to Wiktionary. Or maybe come encyclopedic content on jump starting will spring forth.--Dbratland (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could take out the how-to content, but I suggest leaving the descriptions of what is happening during a boost, why a boost would be necessary, and the stuff about people getting injured during a boost (especially if someone could find statistics more recent that 1995, which I have not yet found on-line). Point at owner's manuals to describe proper procedures. Discuss the explosion hazard and risk of short circuit. The artciel should retain the description of the limitations of a boost (out of gas, etc. ). Take a look at what the article was a couple of years ago and it was even more procedural.
I'm also curious about "overloading a motorcycle's circuits" if boosting from a running car - I don't know what this was trying to say, since the boosting car is a voltage-regulated system, I don't see what "overload" could happen. But I'm not a motorcycle guy.
Or you could just AfD the article and see what happens. Goodness knows, there's a million articles on WP that wouldn't survive a thoughtful discussion on deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what to keep: why, what is happening, what exists, etc. I hesitate to delete the most important safety warnings, just for the sake of maybe helping someone who didn't see the link to Wikibooks.
I can add any number of citations on the motorcycle thing, but I don't know why the car's regulator doesn't prevent overload. That's always kind of bothered me too. The main difference is that motorcycles are designed to save weight, to the point that many of the lighter sportbikes must be kept on a trickle charger if they are not ridden at mid to high rpms most of the time; if they idle too much the battery will not be kept charged by the tiny alternator. The Honda Goldwing is famous for its car-like electrical system and extra capacity to run accessories, as are some motorcycles designed for police use, like the Moto Guzzi 700s/Ambassadors of the 1970s. But still, it's a bit of a mystery.
From personal experience I can say that a motorcycle will very easily fire up connected to a car battery without having to start the car's engine, so it's kind of moot in that sense.
I don't really want to delete this -- there is encyclopedic potential, and if it can become a model for fixing the near-endless number of how-to articles in the Automobile category, like Flat tire or Heel-and-toe.--Dbratland (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycles

[edit]

Here's the oldest source I can find warning that the car should be not running when jumping a motorcycle, lest the bike's electrics are damaged:

  • "Gearhead", American Motorcyclist, vol. 51, no. 12, American Motorcyclist Assoc, December 1997, ISBN 0277-9358 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

It's likely this is a myth, and it could have started with American Motorcyclist in 1997. As with the Duglin Kennedy source cited in the article, no reason is given. It could be a myth that starts with an overabundance of caution and survives due to the relatively low amperage draw of motorcycle starters. If it always works with the car off, and there is less need to challenge the claim by trying it with the car running. Although I've seen posts in forums (FWIW) saying it has been proven harmless to run the car.

I can't see any harm in leaving this out; the current statement that it isn't strictly necessary to turn on the car seems fine. If it is ever possible to discover the thinking behind this dubious warning, it would be interesting to explain it, even if it is wrong.

I have one book from 1974, Motorcycles From the Inside Out by Michael M. Griffin, with a photo on page 193 of a battery being shorted with a pair of pliers, with a caption that reads: "When battery terminals are short-circuited, strong electric arc should appear if the battery is okay." The text calls it a healthy "zap". So the quality of these sources varies considerably.--Dbratland (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And we use to wash wet air cleaners with gasoline, too. The cited column just says "Don't do it" and doesn't say why. I don't understand the mechanism that could cause any damage with the car alternator running. The boosting car has at least as many delicate electronic devices as a bike, so any transients would hit both ends fo the boosting process. Both car and bike have lead-acid 6-cell batteries with presumably similar terminal voltages. Voltage is the same, so it's not like putting 24 V on a 12 V system and popping every bulb and transistor. I'm reasonably sure a motorcycle electrical system is no gentler on electronics than a passenger car.
I suspect only the very largest bike starters draw anything like the several hundred amperes of a car starter, so light-weight booster cables work well enough; and the boost should take so long that the boosting car battery runs down without the alternator. But if I met a stranded biker on the road, I'd follow his directions on engine on vs engine off. Wikpedia has a hard enough time explaining correct things, it probably should not spend any effort documenting the even larger universe of wrong things. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And I probably should have put the advice over on WikiBooks in the first place, where it belongs. The more encyclopedic question is why this folk belief is so strongly held. Many brands of motorcycles, especially in the 60s and 70s, had badly designed electrical systems, and perhaps this fueled paranoia and belief in voodoo. I'll keep an eye out for sources that might have the answer. --Dbratland (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Another citation saying the car must not be be running when jumping a motorcycle. It adds a little more reason as to why, but still fails to specifically address the question of where the excess voltage is coming from. If it is regulated to 14 V, how does the current get too high? If it exceeds 14 V, how does that happen?

JUMP STARTING Let us say from the beginning that jump starting your bike is something we think that you will want to stay away from. Your bike's battery and charging system can be damaged during a jump. It is safer to charge the battery and go from there.

If you get stuck somewhere and have to jump your bike, try to connect the batteries of the two vehicles and just let the good battery charge the bad one, disconnect them and then try starting the bike. If that doesn't work, connect the batteries again, but don't run the engine of the vehicle with the good battery. Try starting the bike.

The problem with using a car to jump a bike is that a car battery provide enough electrical energy to weld the entire wiring harness of the bike to itself in a flash if there is a short somewhere. Use think gauge wire (12 or 14 gauge) to make the jumper cables to limit the amount of current that can be passed during jump starting. This will help protect your bike.

--Dbratland (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What is the point of jump starting a motorcycle? They are easy enough to push start in most conditions, and TBH, one can do it at walking speed if it is in good condition. I speak from plenty of experience..lol. You can even do it on icy days and in snow too. (Bump it up a few gears so that although the engine turns over more slowly, you won't lock up the back wheel as readily.)176.27.15.66 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Lancetyrell[reply]
Diesel bikes at one in the morning. DAMHIKT... Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Error - vehicle with no battery

[edit]

"In an extreme case, it is possible to crank and start a vehicle with no battery in it if the cables are heavy-duty."

That's incorrect. The battery itself is a part of the vehicle's voltage regulating system. Removing it while engine's running will damage the vehicle's electrical systems. Please correct the information. If I'm wrong please notify me.

--larotta (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, I told you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_dump --larotta (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a battery - it's just at the far end of the cables. What does that do to load dump? ( If only some third party had written about watching me start vehicles through booster cables, then it wouldn't be original research. ) --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loosen the clamps?

[edit]

I don't know how other people boost batteries but "loosening the clamps" makes no sense at all. Could the recent edit be confusing battery removal with battery boosting? And be careful..we had an enormous Wikipissingmatch over giving "how to" advice here (see the sad testimony to wasted human endeavor above); wouldn't want to summon the wrath again now, would we? --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. --Dbratland (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QED. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't usually remove a battery when giving a jump start to another vehicle. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

== safety == if one accident will be prevented it is worth it

[edit]

if one accident will be prevented it is worth it . i always scratch the ground terminal before clamping. big flash or no spark ,start checking first .—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdl1961 (talk • contribs)

In your opinion. But Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Wikipedia is not a how-to. If you wish to go debate that policy and get some kind of exception, please go do that. It would be much more sensible to carefully avoid how to advice in the first place, and direct readers to Wikibooks for instructions. You can put all the safety warnings you want over there.

Please do not keep edit warring. The consensus is against you and you should stop reverting as long as that is the case. --Dbratland (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


nonsense picture is there and usage is discussed.but safety is irrelevant.some convoluteed logic.get real pls.Wdl1961 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:NOTHOWTO? --Dbratland (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read "Jump start (vehicle)"Wdl1961 (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the article already contains a "see also" link to the article on Wikibooks for Automobile Repair/Jump start, which adequately covers the "how to" steps, and is a better suited repository for that type of textbook information. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Booster cables picture

[edit]

Every time I look at that picture, I think it's not right. Could we not find a picture with (black and red clamps together) (coil of heavy wire) (black and red clamps together), which woudl be more like you'd see in actual use. Having two red clamps at one end and two black at the other end just looks wrong. I had posted a picture of my own set of cables which at least had the clips paired up in the usual way. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking?

[edit]

Re this edit; how is this over linking? If the concern is about linking "to words that can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia", do we really think that most English Wikipedia readers understand the difference between a jump start and a push start? This link strikes me as appropriate as it explains "technical terms, jargon or slang expression" related to this article. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two links to push start on the page, one in the motorcycle section and another in the {{Main}} tag in the push push starting section. Two links is plenty; four links is overlinking. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah.... woops.. Missed that section. Objection recanted. NickCT (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC
No problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent mass deletion

[edit]

I don't really mind if controversial and uncited material is removed, especially if it has been tagged. But it's a huge step backwards to blank several cited paragraphs and rewrite the article to a stub with zero citations. I would argue that if an editor came here to make this article better, he should bring some sources to cite with him. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that its a "step backward". Reviewing the "sources" shows its something some dude slapped together, which means that its some bro's work from the world of the Internets which for our purposes is just as good as uncited. Per WP:RS and WP:USERG, personal websites of some random people are not acceptable. The trimming also removed a ton of "opinion pieces" and advise materials, because we're not somewhere that offers advise. I also changed all vehicles to equipment/devices and Int. cmb. engines, since jump start is applicable anything having an engine. Citing to personal homepages create a false perception of referenced article while its just a bunch of opinion gibberish. So, I find the current state reflects the conditions of the article better. Please explain your restoration of trash spam site like jumpstarterreviewsforyou.com/ and bitwalla.com Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only personal sites were in the external links section, so I deleted those. The footnotes were to published sources such as vehicle owners' manuals, the Bosch Automotive Handbook 4th Edition, Road Management and Engineering Journal, Popular Mechanics, The Savvy Guide to Motorcycle and so on. Please do not blank cited material again. If you want to make a positive contribution, please find better sources and cite them in footnotes. It's ironic that you complain of personal web pages when this version is tantamount to your own personal home page, filled with your opinions and no reliable sources at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources and prose. You'll find that its not a proper summarizing when you scrutinize the sources. Issues of WP:HOWTO is already in place as you can see in discussion and you added those back as well. Per WP:ONUS challenged contents are removed. Anyways, I will restructure this over the next few days, so let me do my things, ok? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ONUS the cited material stays. You deleted cited facts from the NHSTA on the number of deaths caused by jump starting. Why? What you have written is uncited, if you want to throw around WP:ONUS, the get rid of your uncited original reseach and put back the footnoted facts.

You are also wrong about WP:NOTHOWTO. It says "Describing to the reader how other people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." It is perfectly acceptable to describe to the reader how jump starting is done. It is perfectly acceptable to state facts like connecting the cables backwards will casue an explosion, especially when quality sources like "Haynes Repair Manual, Toyota Corolla 1984 thru 1992. pp. 5–2. ISBN 1-56392-064-6" are cited. The prohibition against how to advice is that it is unecncylopedic to say, "first do this, then do this, then do this." Nothing in the article is written that way, "in the imperative", and if you think any of it is, then all you have to do is reword it so that is no longer in the imperative mood.

If you need time to work, why don't you create a workpage and finish your research, and then come back when you're done? The version of the article you want to go live with now is uncited opinions and it violates WP:ONUS. The material you deleted is better cited than what you are trying to replace it with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you compare the prose and cited materials, they don't necessarily agree. Some rambling on about some very older, motor cycles 6v blah blah blah didn't originate from the source. This is synthesized junk. All it says is that some are 6v, some are 12v and that they're not interchangeable. If you've been following the changes, you'll see that I reintroduced the part about injury statistics. See Table 1 in the originally cited source. <url>http://www.usroads.com/journals/rmej/9808/rm980801.htm</url>. Since it just says its a reproduction of original, and whoever did it reproduced it incorrectly, I replaced it with the ORIGINAL <url>http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/97840.PDF</url>. See table 1 again. Cited does not mean that summary is correct. and if the summary is wrong, deletion of that portion is warranted. I'm also working on removing references to vehicles' owner's manual and replacing them with a few general sources. The vehicle owner's manuals are written specific to that vehicle and the suggestion of say, connection points don't necessarily apply to others. I look forward to your response. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting somewhere. You dispute that most older motorcycles were 6V but now they're all 12V? You feel there should be a citations for that? WP:Verifiability says, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" Until now nobody suggested this fact was controversial and so it wasn't footnoted. This is why it's better to be specific about what the problem is instead of doing mass deletions. A footnote can be provided for this basic fact if that is where the problem is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to this article? Where's all the content? Why have we moved it? What happened to the English? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jump start (vehicle). 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video? Why?

[edit]

RE: {{Video requested}}.

Why would a video make this article better? It sounds like yet another attempt to stuff how-to advice into the article. See WP:NOTHOWTO. There's no reason why you can't have an encyclopedic description of connecting cables with only a couple still images. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jump_start_(vehicle)&oldid=1207160874"