Talk:Car/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

What is the intended scope of this article?

What is the range of topics that should be considered subs of this article? I see discussions of vans, SUVs, and minivans in the article. Are they intend to be in scope? Springee (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

To add to this question. The article has sections that explicitly include light trucks in two sections. It also has SUV and minivans in another section. If the scope of this article is meant to only be cars then larger topics such as the environmental issues associated with personal transportation vehicles, discussions of automotive technologies such as engines and suspensions shared between cars, SUV and trucks would no longer be in scope. So what is the scope of this article meant to be? Springee (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate this question. This article seems to cover topics that aren't just cars but also SUVs, light trucks etc. What is the intended scope of this article? Should the topics be put in other locations? Springee (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Springee: like a lot of articles on Wikipedia, the scope isn't defined up front, it seems to be whatever gets added and isn't removed - that becomes the WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If you think content is out of scope, then why not try removing it (with a reasonably detailed explanation in the edit summary) and see if anyone reverts you. If they do, then start a talkpage discussion and see if you can convince others to support you. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious the scope is the term car construed broadly, as equivalent to automobile. That very much includes SUVs and light trucks. "Should the topics be put in other locations?" No. Look at the first two sentences of this article: "A car (or automobile) is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transportation. Most definitions of car say they run primarily on roads, seat one to eight people, have four tires, and mainly transport people rather than goods". The scope is made perfectly clear up front. Any argument to remove environmental issues or discussions of major component technologies could be applied equally to every single section of this article. That logic would delete the entire contents of the article.

Even if we did redefine the scope of this article to be narrower, that would only create a vacuum that needs to be filled by an article that provides a broad summary of the topics given by the two sentences I quoted. This is explained in Wikipedia:Summary style.

You could certainty get bogged down in a pedantic debate over what the precise title of the article should be, but the only place that really leads is to title like Wheeled motor vehicle used for transportation run primarily on roads, seating one to eight people, having four tires, and mainly to transport people rather than goods. We don't want titles anything like that, because it's not 1719. The presumed Wikipedia reader has a level of English comprehension well above that necessary to be aware that the word car is not a precise scientific term, and can be used to mean a broad range of things. So the title Car is effectively telling the reader that they have arrived at a broad umbrella article, and so it complies with WP:PRECISION better than any alternative. But even if it didn't, the Car-shaped-hole in Wikipedia where Car resides will have to be filled with something, whatever you want to call it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable to me and basically what I felt as well. It also suggests that "Car" isn't an appropriate title (which was basically my point). I think the intent of this article is to be an umbrella for topics that fall under cars/SUVs/light trucks etc as typically used for personal transportation etc. Basically this isn't a good title for the article since Automobile is the more inclusive term. Springee (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Oxford Dictionaries, "automobile" and "car" are synonyms, with the former being the North American English word and the latter the British/International English word. So there is no difference in inclusivity between the two words. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

But they aren't in North American usage. We talk of "cars and trucks". The US vehicle regulations are broken into those that affect cars and those that affect truck trucks. For example the EPA mileage rules are different for cars and trucks. If this is meant to be an umbrella article and it clearly includes discussions of trucks and SUVs (EPA puts those in with trucks) then perhaps "cars" is not the best name. Looking through the article history it's clear that a few editors were very passionate about the "car" title but is it really the best name? In use Automobiles seems to be the better umbrella term given SUV and light trucks would be "automobiles". Do British car magazines call things like a Ford Explorer a "car"? Springee (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In British English a "truck" is generally a heavy goods carrying vehicle (examples, more examples) I'm not familiar with the Ford Explorer, but all the current Land Rover vehicles are called cars. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yup. We do talk of 'cars and trucks', but when we want to be even more concise, we say 'car' when we mean both. We call Ford, FCA, GM, etc, 'carmakers' even though their top selling vehicles for the last 35 some years have not been "cars", in the narrow sense, but SUVs and pickup trucks. The F-150 might be Ford's #1 product, but we call Ford a car maker, not a truck maker. We talk of 'car buying' to describe what, for most Americans, is actually light truck buying or SUV buying.

What happened was, we didn't have a convenient word to cover all those things you see out on the freeway, all those things that Ford makes. We got tired of saying "cars and trucks" and so we changed the language. We redefined 'car' to include, depending on context of course, trucks and SUVs. It can even include motorcycles and busses, when speaking of everything that we find on the freeways and roads. We could say motor vehicle, but that's also a tiresome phrase, and it can imply boats and helicopters, so we prefer to keep it simple and say car. Language is modified at will in real time to suit the needs of the people using it. You can tell it's right by the fact that nobody complains at news headlines that use 'car' this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's "right". It's casual but I don't think we should use casual definitions when, for example, "automobile", the original title of this article covers both cars and trucks without squinting to pack the Land Rover into the car camp. Frequently we will talk about the "cars and trucks" on the roads today. We would also talk about the impact of those automobiles on the environment. Sure, "cars" is an understandable title but "automobiles" is more accurate while being just as understandable. I agree we should avoid a name such as "motorized personal land transportation blah blah blah..." Springee (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no squinting whatsoever in the use of the word "car". There's nothing "casual" about the definition. The defintion of car is automobile, full stop. Do you see any qualifications here? Or here? The OED says car means "motor car Now the usual sense". What does the OED mean by motor car? It is "A road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal combustion engine), designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers, and usually having two front and two rear wheels, esp. for private, commercial, or leisure use; an automobile;". Car is exactly correct. There is no "blah".

You're fabricating your own novel arguments as to what the meaning of car is, but you're simply wrong, and sources say quite clearly that you are wrong. Car means automobile. Car means "road vehicle with a motor that carries a driver, some passengers, usually with 4 wheels." Car is exactly what this article is about. The fact that there are other senses of car that don't perfectly match this topic is irrelevant. You can go to any article and point out that there are other senses of the word. Water can be a verb; it can refer to urine, but it also can, and usually does, refer to the topic of water.

I believe that your reasoning about how language and lexicography works is highly misguided, and that is why you have one editor after another telling you that you're wrong. You're not going to change anyone's mind until you give us a reason to doubt the facts presented in all the dictionaries telling us what this word means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Part of the confusion is that for most of the world a car/automobile is essential a personal passenger vehicle (eg, a sedan, coupe or sports car) and a truck is a commercial vehicle (eg, a Mack or Iveco but also including buses). But Americans say "truck" as short hand for pickup truck and use them as personal transport. For most of the world, a US style pickup is still a commercial vehicle (ie, not personal transport) but for Americans their "truck" is a personal transport. I'm not sure if an average American would classify a pickup as a car or a truck but their government certainly classifies it as a full-on commercial vehicle, which is why they have less restrictive emissions controls, which is a major reason why they are so popular there.  Stepho  talk  23:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no confusion. Zero reliable sources have even vaguely hinted at the existence of any confusion. This is one of those pseudo-controversies that happen within Wikipedia editing circles but have no analog in the real world. If it did, we'd be seeing citations to accompany all the editors claiming there is a problem in need of a solution. Not sure if an average American would classify a pickup as a car or a truck? Again, Ford's #1 selling vehicle for 35+ years has been the F-150 pickup. Americans call Ford a "car maker". The F-150 is a "car", or rather, when speaking of all motor vehicles of the kind people drive around in, they're all cars. This is equally true in UK English, according to the OED. Maybe one or the other is more frequent, but according to the OED, the definitions of the words are the same in the US and the UK.

There is no such thing in the US as a "full-on commercial vehicle". The US EPA has categories for emissions, such as "light duty vehicle", "light duty truck", medium duty truck", etc. "Light duty vehicle". They have categories they use for calculating the CAFE, using "passenger car" and "light truck" and making a distinction for some of them on 4wd vs 2wd. In normal usage, a car is still a car if it is 4wd or awd or whatever. The US IRS has has the so-called "Hummer tax loophole", or Section 179, which has encouraged the popularity of SUVs, as you mention. Many of these rules use 6,000 lbs as the cutoff for truck, or light duty or whatever. But not always.

The US is a patchwork of different laws, enacted for different reasons. There are 56 states and territories, and 56 different sets of rules. It's turtles all the way down. Many countries have confusing legal codes on this stuff, but in the US its especially messy. You cannot infer the common meaning, for things like WP:COMMONNAME, or for any purpose, going by any one of these scores of different laws and jurisdictions.

When you register a van in most US states, you'll get a license plate that says "TRUCK" on it, even though you never hear anyone look at a van and say, "That's my truck". If you said, there's "two trucks over there", pointing at, say, a Dodge Ram van parked next to a Ford Transit, most people would look at you in confusion. "Those are two vans. No trucks over there." The state licensing sense of "truck" has in no way affected the everyday meaning of the words car, truck or van. If you asked, most USians will tell you the word "TRUCK" on a van looks a little funny every time they read it. We should ignore all that, and focus on what dictionaries tell us, and the evidence of mainstream periodicals and books, which clearly use the word car in exactly the sense this article uses it. Look for phrases, besides car maker, like "car culture", "electric car", "hybrid car", "car infrastructure", "car insurance", "car wash", "car accident", "police car", "car dealer", "car care", "car bomb", "car parts", "car traffic", etc. Every single one of them subsumes trucks, SUVs and vans along with the word "car". There is zero confusion about any of this in the real world. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Wasn't this a rename from Automobile to Car? The scope for "car" seems clear to me (no SUVs) but "automobile" much less so. Despite asking for years, neither WP nor Commons has yet defined automobile usefully and cleared up this "trucks, light trucks, SUVs" issue. Thus we should generally avoid the term (yes, I know it's common in the US) when it's unclear, just because it's unclear. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The "no SUV" part is kind of my point. I do get that many dictionaries say the terms are interchangeable but other sources don't. For example, an SUV or minivan or truck isn't a car according to the US EPA. Denis's points aren't invalid but in terms of best name for a broad topic in an encyclopedia, "automobile" is better in this case. It doesn't have any issues with fit nor recognition. It's also more formal without a loss of understanding. Hence we have an article, about the History of the automobile rather than History of the car. Also in the US we have publications like Truck Trend which is a sister publication to Motor Trend. Yes, Car and Driver covers trucks. So does Automobile (magazine). Discussions related to this topic and the category rename (Automobile -> Car) suggested that "trucks" aren't to be under the umbrella of this topic. However the way this article is written suggests otherwise (at least as it concerns light trucks). Springee (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

"For example, an SUV or minivan or truck isn't a car according to the US EPA." Incorrect. [1][2][3][4] The EPA uses plain English just like everyone else. When making reference to statutes that distinguish between "cars" and "light trucks" or whatever, they use that terminology. But the rest of the time, they use normal English, and don't feel obligated to use cumbersome phrases like "cars, trucks, SUVs, and vans" when they can just say "cars" and be certain that everyone knows that includes the others. I'm willing to be convinced, but you're not showing me any sources. Can you cite one single source to support any of your assertions? I can go on all day citing sources that car includes trucks, vans and SUVs. Cite evidence that readers are uncertain what "car" means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So you agree, the EPA sees cars as different than "light trucks". I'm not claiming that in context people won't understand. Instead, I'm saying that no one is claiming an F-150 isn't an automobile while many will say it isn't a car. Springee (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobody says it isn't a car. Where are your sources? Why do you go on wasting everyone's time this way. Cite something or stop this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is an automotive engineering text that puts cars as a subcategory of automobile. [[5]] Springee (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Indian English? OK, fine. The book you cite uses car as a catchall term, the same as everyone does. It uses it in the sense in which a car is distinct from a truck, and it uses car in the sense that includes trucks. Because that's how everyone uses the word car. Please stop wasting everyone's time. What problem are you even solving here? Where is the evidence that there is anything wrong? If "car" is a problematic word, cite someone who says so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Dennis, you aren't forced to participate here. If you don't want to discuss this then don't. Springee (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I do want to discuss. I'm happy to be enlightened. I want to be corrected if I'm wrong. If there is evidence to support anything you're saying, I want to see it. What you are doing is filibustering. A lot of hand waving and grandstanding. But nothing of any consequence. Using Wikipedia talk pages as you are is not acceptable. If you don't have any real evidence, then you should stop filling up the page with empty words. Do not continue this disruptive behavior. If any real evidence that car is a problematic term ever does turn up, then we can look into it. Until then, drop it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Dennis, the article title name was debated a number of times and seems it was only successfully changed by having a short name change discussion. Discussing the name of the article is no more disruptive now than it was in the past. I think a RFC looking into the name would be reasonable. Springee (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You shouldn't do it because you don't have a shred of evidence to support any of your claims. You're going to repeat all these made up assertions for why car doesn't mean what all our sources tell us it means, and then some editor is going to call you on that, and then they're going to have to repeatedly cross examine you to get you to cough up one source to back up what you say, and you'll toss out red herrings like this, and someone will have to waste their time debunking it. You should not do that. Starting an RfC when you know damn well you don't have anything to build your case on is acting in bad faith. That is disruptive editing.

There is no split here that calls out for a broader discussion. There's you vs everybody else. You started here, repeatedly badgering everyone to engage you on this. You posted three times in this thread before someone finally took the bait. And everyone told you: no, no, no, no. That's not an invitation to start an RfC. That's a huge clue to drop it. WP:LISTEN now. Listen. You were told no. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Dennis, looking at the history of the debate and adding in the protests over the related category name change I think your claim that there is no merit to a name change is hard to credit. I'm not going to launch an RfC without putting together a number of arguments but I think one can review the debate history to find a lot of arguments for. Thus far you are the only one who has said no. Springee (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

Rahulsethiya05 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2019 (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. Danski454 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Include climate effects in environmental impact section

As a government official on transportation policy I find a lot of information on climate effects of aspects of policies that we propose, but very few applied numbers in the IPCC, UN or national websites. It would be convenient to find a fork of values for climate effects in relevant wikipedia articles. For the car article I would like to add e.g. the manufacturing numbers from following article in the guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car

The carbon footprint of a new car:

6 tonnes CO2e: Citroen C1, basic spec

17 tonnes CO2e: Ford Mondeo, medium spec

35 tonnes CO2e: Land Rover Discovery, top of the range

The carbon footprint of making a car is immensely complex.

I am aware that it needs rephrasing in the context of a wikipedia article.

For the effects of fuel use I would refer to the articles about the different fuels.

Can this be considered? Thank you.

Jjeroen (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The car industry claim manufacturing emissions have reduced a lot since the article you cite and is now 0.6 tonnes CO2e per car https://www.acea.be/press-releases/article/environmental-impact-of-car-production-strongly-reduced-over-last-decade but that article is for Europe not worldwide.

Whereas https://theconversation.com/the-hidden-carbon-cost-of-everyday-products-96745 does not give a figure.

Sorry I have not time to read http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/tpi/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Methodology-note-automobiles-November-2018.pdf but maybe you or someone else can figure it out from that.

Presumably if one was driving, say, a Tesla in Norway then all the emissions are from manufacture and delivery (and end-of-life recycling but we would really have no idea about that yet I guess) but there is no data on Tesla at http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/tpi/the-toolkit/ Who can guess how many km a battery will last for - not me.

Compared to the emissions per km driven of ICE cars maybe manufacturing and recycling emissions are a now such small percentage of life-cycle emissions as not to be worth writing about?

Chidgk1 (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)