Talk:Skid (automobile)

Requested move 14 August 2015

Skid (automobile) → Skid (vehicle) – Any kind of vehicle can skid - a car, a truck, a motorcycle, a bicycle, a skateboard, a landing airplane, etc. bd2412 T 02:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 what do you think of Skid (vehicle motion) or Skid (driving). The skid itself is something external to the vehicle. GregKaye 03:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I still like "vehicle" alone. Driving is not bad; "vehicle motion" is more than is needed to describe the topic. bd2412 T 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment skid (vehicular motion) or skid (vehicle motion) would be the right name, because skids are also parts of vehicles, particularly helicopters use skids, but many primitive forms of transport vehicles also use skids instead of wheels. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose as proposed use alternative skid (vehicular motion) or skid (vehicle motion) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support move, but to skid (vehicular motion), due to "A skid is a sort of iron shoe attached to a chain, and placed under the hind-wheel of a carriage to retard its progress when going down hill." In ictu oculi ([ [User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 06:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any move per the KISS principle. The current article is about only automobile/motorcar skidding. The proposed titles are obfuscating and borderline obtuse. —  AjaxSmack  01:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @AjaxSmack: Do you think that the current article is inapplicable to a truck skidding, or to an airplane skidding as it lands on a runway? Do we need separate articles for these instances of skidding? bd2412 T 18:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I noticed before that current article only covers motorcars but it is not limited to them so I no longer oppose any move. However, many of the proposed targets are still awkward or obfuscatory and worse than the current title. Therefore, how about skid (motor vehicle) to match the motor vehicle article? —  AjaxSmack  19:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
      • There are motor vehicles which have parts called "skids", and the topic of this article is not a piece of a motor vehicle, rather it is an action. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support a move but skid (driving) is both accurate and simple. Skid (vehicle) would be second choice, I don't think it would be a worry about helicopter skids etc.Pincrete (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Any vehicle that has a part called a "skid" would be ambiguous with "skid (vehicle)", as a body part of vehicles is called a "skid", so "(vehicle)" is highly inappropriate. Further, not just helicopters have skids, they're just the most prominent example. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, that is why '(vehicle)' is second choice, '(driving)' first choice, I said helicopter skids etc. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

So why do you think "(vehicle)" is now appropriate then? Since this is still does not sufficiently describe the topic of the article, as it could easily mean the parts pieces of vehicles. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Only because no title is going to satisfy every possible usage, an 'about' hat would solve the problem if/when 'skid' as a vehicular component is written. Broadly speaking, this article at present covers cars, vans, coaches, rigid-lorries, and other vehicles that behave in like manner. It doesn't cover (yet?) some vehicles that behave in distinct ways. I'm balancing precision and conciseness.Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support any of the proposed disambiguators other than the current one – Present title doesn't make much sense. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Pinging In ictu oculi, AjaxSmack, Pincrete, RGloucester: how about just Skid (motion)? bd2412 T 18:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This could mean human motion.Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Under what circumstance would you describe a human in a skidding motion that would be inapplicable to a vehicle in a skidding motion? bd2412 T 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't, but the title suggests 'skidding' in general rather than 'skidding in a vehicle', which is the article topic.Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Can the article be expanded to present a general introduction to skidding as a general phenomena of Kinetic friction? I agree that "skid" has a broad meaning as per search on "ran and skidded" GregKaye 23:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal 2

Pinging others​​​​​: how about skid (motor vehicle) to match the motor vehicle article which covers all of the vehicles in question? —  AjaxSmack  19:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it does. What about gravity racers, then? They have wheels and steering, and can skid like any other vehicle, but have no motor. Now I am leaning towards Skid (vehicle motion). bd2412 T 19:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict:AjaxSmack, sounds fine, personally prefer (driving) on the KISS principle, but this is pretty darn clear.Pincrete (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Motors are not necessarily involved [1].

Skid (vehicle motion) as per suggestion at 03:16, 14 August 2015. GregKaye 01:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose vehicles with motors have parts called "skids" which have nothing to do with the topic of this article, a type of motion and not a vehicular part, therefore is highly improper for a disambiguator. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move proposal feedback

While all wheeled vehicles can skid, there are significant dynamic differences between two and four wheeled vehicles. Individual tire performance may be modeled similarly but the rotational stability makes the more complicated auto dynamics such as spinouts nigh-on impossible without overturn.

We could add more content for other vehicle types, add a DAB for all vehicles with new pages for other types, etc. But this is currently focused on four wheel car behavior. A simple move makes no sense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean a WP:DABCONCEPT? bd2412 T 20:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking just a DAB but on reflection a general skid page, with more specific pages for behavior of vehicle types (autos, two-wheeled vehicles, etc) might make the most sense. I just don't want to lump it all together indiscriminately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think GWH is right, in that 2 wheel and articulated vehicles behave in distinct ways (not sure about 3-wheels, airplanes etc.), what the article is currently about would apply to all rigid 4,6,8 etc wheel vehicles. Where does that leave us in the rename discussion? Pincrete (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)