Talk:Fender (vehicle)

Normal Car

Shouldn't there be a picture illustrating fenders on a more standard looking modern car? Andrew Nutter  Talk | Contribs  05:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

UK legal requirements

This section (under the bicycle and motorcycles section) seems confused. It talks about the legal requirements for motorcyclists and then implicitly extends this logic to cyclists. The rule for motorcycles seems perfectly believable but I don't believe it applies to cycles for a minute. I've never heard of such a rule and surrounding legislation and practice seems to contradict it.

For example, there are many requirements for bikes on sale in the UK that actually go further than what is required to ride on the road - e.g. a bike needs to be sold with a bell, front and wheel reflectors but none of those are legally required to be present when riding on the road (pedal and rear reflectors are). With this in mind I find it hard to believe that it would be allowable to sell bikes lacking even the equipment needed for them to be considered roadworthy. CrispMuncher (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stylish Aftermarket Fenders

Lyteric, I've removed the references to specific brands of aftermarket fenders for the second time on the basis of advertising. While I read the material you wrote on cooling effects, and recognize that vented fender designs might result in lower tire/wheel/brake operating temperatures, this is largely irrelevant on consumer vehicles and is not part of typical fender function.

It could easily be argued that based on the edits to this article, but especially when your other edits are considered, that the motiviation for inclusion of this material is promotion of a specific brand of stylish aftermarket fenders. Wikipedia is not an advertising site. Bradkay (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Link Spam?

Regarding edit by AndrewDressel, the links to Audatex, CCC, and Mitchell in my view are the same as listing the old Motors manuals as references. They are estimating programs including databases with part names, just as the Motors manuals are printed databases with the same information. I included them because they are the source of recent material concerning the names of these parts.

I am not associated with these companies in any way except as a prior user of their products during many years in the insurance and collision repair industry. There is no selectivity involved in mentioning these sources. All collision estimating software in the US uses the Audatex database, the Mitchell database, or the Motors database (of which the major licensee is CCC).

I believe these references are proper to list as the source of some of the material I contributted to this article, the Motors manuals listed providing the rest. I have not listed other providers of this database information, such as CompEst or WebEst because 1) any information they have is also in the CCC or Mitchell references, and 2) listing them could be considered promotion as they have/had insignificant market share. No different than mentioning Kraft Foods in an article on BarBQ sauce while omitting the Montgomery Inn. Bradkay (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of those links do not contain any obvious reference to fenders! They are commercial. They are not independently reliable. They have no place in this or any other Wikipedia article. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So, should I mention the estimating software database as a reference without linking the site of the companies? Bradkay (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is a way to link to one of the databases, that might be good. If they are all proprietary, then that is not so good. A problem with the links to commercial software is that everyone wants to have a link to their favorite commercial software. That is what caught my attention in the first place. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The database is part of the software. The software is licensed to users generally on one year contracts. Only licensees have easy access. So its not possible to link to the database.

However, these are the sources. So should I list them as references without links to the web sites of the company? Bradkay (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if these were in-line references for particular details they would attract fewer me-too external links. Do they actually support any particular details? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The actual website previously linked doesn't provide the details. It is not possible to link the actual database of the software, so I linked to the software websites, which I considered no different than listing the Motors Crash Guides as references. But I can see from this discussion that it is different.

No where do any of these sources say "this is a fender" and "this is not a fender". Their useage of the word by them is as I describe in the portions of the article I wrote. Those in the involved industries (collision repair and insurance claims) use the word in a specific way, which is often not understood by consumers. Similar to a consumer saying about their computer "I'm running out of memeory" and someone in the industry knows that what they're trying to say is they're running out of hard drive space.

Is this information verifiable? Yes, but not in the standard way of going to a website or checking a book at the library. But then, there are a lot of obscure out of print books referenced in Wikipedia articles which aren't available easily.

Anyway, I know of no way to reference the article except with industry information that's not commonly available to people outside the involved industries. Of cousre, someone could go to a collision repair shop or an insurance claims office and ask "what does your estimating program call this part" as easily as they could go to a library and check a reference on a typical article.

Probably too much detail above. However, if I just say certain information is from Audatex, CCC, and Mitchell without linking their websites, does that work? Bradkay (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Scope

Isn't it ambiguous to say Fender (vehicle), shouldn't it rather be something like Fender (vehicle part) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixelson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

why is it called "fender" ?

is it short for "defender" ?

Is this a reliable source:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fender

?

the article doesn't mention boats nor fireplaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.72.23 (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)