Talk:Mudflap

Requested move (May 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mudflap → Mudflap (automotive) — A short reason for page name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.152.104 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• No reason given for the move, but a new dab page would be better. It can be linked through an {{otheruses}} hatnote. talk 15:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose no need for a move with only two entities called "mudflap". Just use hatnotes. — AjaxSmack 03:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this "Transformers"-IP-editor never leaves a reason, and never seems to read his/her talk page. All his/her move requests should be automatically denied. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support move this page and add the disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.152.104 (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No rationale given for move, and it shouldn't be moved. I have struck out the IP's attempt to !vote unsigned (I presume the thought process was that nobody would notice the request and the !vote came from the same IP). --Sable232 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No rationale given for move, and nothing better to replace it with. DMahalko (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Move. To me the primary meaning is ordinary mudflap. Let page Mudflap be the disambig page. What are the figures for people accessing each of these pages? The incoming links to page Mudflap seem to be mostly from automotive related pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.152.104 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (September 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: speedy close. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Mudflap → Mudflap (automotive) — Mudflap will be turn into a disambiguation page. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. Nothing to disambiguate; the related article at Mudflap girl does not require disambiguation, which leaves us with this article and Mudflap (Transformers). This article is the clear primary meaning, and the existing hatnotes deal perfectly well with the other articles. The proposer has a long record of raising similar moves, none of them successful, and several warnings and one block for disruptive editing, and has been asked nicely to read the policy. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Talk:White Rabbit. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh never mind, we don't create at Mudflap (disambiguation) and no move. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that's the only reasonable outcome, especially considering this is the second attempt you have made at this exact move this year (see #Requested move (May 2010) above), and on this occasion you have offered no arguments at all in its favour, let alone any new ones. Please read WP:DAB#Deciding to disambiguate and justify any proposed new disambiguation pages in terms of it. Andrewa (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support based on my review of the 17 incoming links. They are about equally divided between references to vehicle mud flaps (with and without the girl) and the Transformer character Mudflap. Hatnotes are a hack. It is better to fix the incoming links, and when incoming links need fixing a disambiguation page is appropriate. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Once Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mudflap (disambiguation) is created, move the article about mud flaps over the redirect Mud flap and move the disambiguation page to Mudflap. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Now that Mudflap (disambiguation) exists, I support moving the article at Mudflap to Mud flap and moving the disambiguation page to Mudflap. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have any rationale for moving Mudflap to Mud flap? Even if such a move were desirable, one should redirect to the other, so I would oppose this also. PC78 (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I do. Unlike many incoming links to Mudflap, incoming links to Mud flap all intend mud flaps, and "mud flap" is the usual term for these things. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Mudflap and Mud flap refer to the same common real world object. One should redirect to the other, and both should have priority over a Transformers character. PC78 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO the DAB should be deleted, but I'm not sure I can be bothered. It does no great damage. See Talk:Mudflap (disambiguation)#A sad history. Andrewa (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is quite clearly the primary topic as opposed to the character. PC78 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• How so? I don't think there is any primary topic here. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• You're joking, I assume? PC78 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:PRIMARYUSAGE in the REAL WORLD is the automotive part, not the toy. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia page view statistics for August 2010 suggest that if there is any primary topic here then it is the transformer character. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• 134 Mud flap
• 885 Mudflap
• 2768 Mudflap girl
• 9962 Mudflap (Transformers)

• A good job then that page view statistics "may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors". PC78 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The automotive part is the primary usage, like it or not. I see no convincing evidence that, without context, the word "mudflap" refers to the Transformer. The page statistics may just reflect a systemic bias towards fan culture and against the automotive services industry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ask 100 people on the street what comes to mind when you say "mudflap," the vast majority will know it as the automotive part.
• Also support banning the nominator from wasting editors' time by continually making these frivolous move requests. --Sable232 (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Post them a polite warning, which both gives them the chance to review their behaviour and is a necessary part of the case for a ban if it does come to that, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. See also the discussion concerning this user's behaviour recently started by another IP at User talk:Andrewa#Talk:Mudflap and feel free to comment there. Andrewa (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Smart Mudflap/aerodynamic mudflap vs Mudflap

Well, I tried to split the difference and make the article fair, and also actually about mudflaps in the general sense. Avgjoejohn, I'm not in any place to be lecturing you, as I'm new here too, but if you want to write about your Smart Mudflaps company and your step-dad and the history of his work, write an article about it - if it meets notability guidelines and you can verifiably source it. Then add a see also link to it on this page. I don't think this article is the place for it. 96.238.148.17 (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Boy, you just can't let it go can you? I would argue both the claim of invention of the mobile snow melter and first aerodynamic engineering of mudflaps are false, based on fairly cursory searches. Here is a 1951 patent on a snow melting machine stated in the patent as designed to be carried on a truck or trailer. Here is a 1967 patent for a sophisticated truck-based snow melting vehicle. While you don't date your claim of your step-father's invention, neither of these list him as the inventor. And why aren't you referencing the Wikipedia article on the Metromelt, which is the same machine your exterior link refers to? If you'd like to use the exterior link as a reference, fine, but use it properly in a reference section and make sure it actually supports the claims you make, which this doesn't, as it doesn't mention Albert Morin at all, which is the claim any reference would have to support.

As far as the mudflaps, here's a patent from 1957 for a mudflap which pretty clearly uses louvers, and is indeed cited as a reference of prior art in your 1987 patent, as is this patent from 1967. Perhaps your mudflaps could be considered an advancement in design and engineering, but I don't think you can claim that they are the first design to utilize shaping, louvers, or vents. And I don't know about your claim for first commercialize them in 2001 because I stopped being interested before searching for support for that claim. :)

... As for mudflaps 1st commercialization claim... is this what you were looking for ? landline article 2001 .. I'd send you a copy of the $10k it cost for the booth,and innovations transporter, but it hurts just thinking about it. :)

Never said I was first to patent .. this is what I originaly said on Wikipedia " Vortex Splash Guards were first Patented in 1985. As a result of decades of work left behind by the late inventor A.Z.Morin - inventor of the mobile snow melter - inspired by his wife Muriel to improve road safety, with 6 subsiquent international patents, likewise daring to dream, Mark Morin inventor and IP owner consiquently so inspired, debuted the next generation technology in 2001 at the Great America Truck Show. This technology, by industry standards, is the most technologicly advanced mudflap in the world. NTEA going green without breaking budget - 3rd pgh from bottom " 19:59, 22 March 2011

It's late in the day .. running flat out .. I've removed the snow melter refrences anyway, none the less I'll revert back on the Melter issue first chance ....

What it turned out to be now on Wikipieda, because I've had to seemingly settle for what ever sticks, is as you see it. Not because of my doing. Bottom line is, our technology didn't just stay on paper, we were first to both Patent & Commercialise ... this is what matters in the real world ) Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, if you think your step-father's inventions and your mudflaps are notable enough, why don't you write a separate article about it/them, and add a 'see also' link from this article, as I suggested above? 96.238.148.17 (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I know and understand how easy it can be to get sceptacle the world gives us too many reasons.

Thanks for your care .. sounds like a good idea ..

Avgjoejohn316 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:96.238.148.17Took your advice and started new article but someone arbitrarily dealeated me ... needing help I've just reloaded for some kind of commity review (diff | hist) . . N Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Aerodynamic Mudflap‎; 02:16 . . (+4,437) . . Here's where you can find it. It hasn't and doesn't it promote the company name. I've removed any refrence to " Smart flap" only becuase someone may think I'm promoting this name brand. You'll see I don't promote any name brand. Just the catagory. Removed the refrence just to be sure.aerodynamic mudflap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avgjoejohn316 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)