Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 29 September 2014

Template:Vital article

	Car is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 28, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Automobiles Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:WP1.0

Archives

/Archive 1 - Prior to August 2003 /Archive 2 - Prior to December 2006 /Archive 3 - Prior to January 2010 /Archive 4 - After January 2010

Requested move (October 2013)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by requester due to lack of consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Automobile → Car – I am not normally one who proposes change for change's sake, but I think this article is an exception. Car is currently a redirect here. However, I do not think anyone will dispute that "car"7 is the common name used by the majority of English speakers. This is true, certainly. A more important issue, however, is that "automobile" is a chiefly North American term. It is rarely used in the United Kingdom, even though it would be understood, and I'd say is perceived as what one might call an "Americanism". This entry in the Oxford English Dictionary confirms this. In Britain, the more traditional "long-form" name is "motorcar". However, I would never propose that we use another term that is specific to a certain dialectal mode. Instead, I propose, that per WP:COMMONALITY, the term "Car" be used as the title for this article. "Car" is the common name for this device across the world. It is understood everywhere, and is used by everyone. This certainly applies to neither "automobile" nor "motorcar". This is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. WP:COMMONALITY trumps that, and regardless, car is not specific to any dialect, and is perfectly acceptable to Canadians, Americans, British folk &c. The title of this article should certainly be "Car". RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I bet that'd surprise the Automobile Association of the UK that they're too American. Especially the European Automobile Manufacturers Association; Perhaps the Royal Automobile Association and New Zealand Automobile Association as well. And the OED indicates French origin, so it'd be weird that such an early term would bypass the UK on its way to the US. Also usage for English names of various companies throughout the non-English world Saab Automobile , Chery Automobile , Automobiles Martini, Minsk Automobile Plant , Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association ; And such ones as Premier Automobiles Limited, TCM Automobiles -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose our articles use "automobile" and renaming this article will likely cause a cascade of renames, not all appropriate; but "car" is a less inclusive term in general usage, compared to "automobile", since you have your car and your pickup, but both are automobiles. "Automobile industry" is more than just cars, it'd be most of the road motor vehicle industry -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a case where the technical term should be used, as the WP:COMMONNAME is ambiguous - trains have cars, for instance. And as mentioned above, "cars" and "light trucks" are both "automobiles". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Confused oppose - I'm British and i don't understand this one...We change Automobile to Car right? Then what about automobiles that aren't cars? Pickups, vans, buses, etc. Do they then need a separate article? This doesn't make much sense to me. Automobile - Vehicle maybe, but not to car. I'd be asking the same if you had suggested Automobile - bicycle. Thanks ツ Jenova20 22:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can't see any great benefit to this change. Also 'car' can refer to train carriages.  Stepho  talk  23:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• First of all, the issue with "car" referring to railway carriages is nonexistent. As I mentioned, car already redirects here, with a hatnote already in place. This is clearly not a disambiguation issue at all, or else car would not redirect here presently. Second of all, buses and trucks are not "automobiles" either, according to the Oxford Dictionary. The only definition it is given, according to the OED, is "car". They are exactly equatable, and you would be hard-pressed to find anyone that referred to trucks as "automobiles". Also, just because "automobile" is used by some technical, specialist origins does not mean that it is not chiefly American. The OED clearly states this. RGloucester — ☎ 02:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This, this and this are automobiles but they are not cars. GB fan 02:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was debated some time ago (see the talk archive), and no new comments here make a case to change. Could add to the examples above and include Royal Automobile Club, Automobile Club de l'Ouest, and Fiat Automobiles. Warren (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The generic term also covers a variety of other things called "cars", all of which will need to be dab hatnoted (or hatnoted to a redirect). To what end? Should Car be a dab page, instead of a redirect? Maybe. This is the term describing the subject, & AIUI, WP:Commonname doesn't govern in this instance. Nor, IMO, should it. TREKphiler 18:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• I guess people are contesting the OED, then. Just because a company from a non-English speaking country uses the "automobiles" doesn't mean that it is not chiefly American, and not a commonly used term in Britain other than for specialist uses. Second of all, according to the OED, as in the definition I linked, pickups and vans are not automobiles. I would agree. I would never call them as such. I shall link the definition again for posterity. Look at this entry from the OED. An automobile is a "car". It is not different from a car. It is also chiefly North American. At Misplaced Pages, do we not follow what the sources say? Finally, there IS NO DISAMBIGUATION ISSUE. Car already redirects here, with a hatnote. If there was an issue, it would not redirect here as it stands, but instead would send one to the DAB page. But it it doesn't, because an "automobile" is most certainly the primary topic one is looking for when one searches for car. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the disambiguation issue: It could be argued that 'car' should redirect to the disambiguation page instead of relying on a hat note. I could live with either.

Regarding the claim of American nomenclature: There are plenty of other articles using American terms as the name; eg trunk (automobile), tire). 'Automobile' is well attested in most countries as the proper name, even if it isn't the first choice in casual conversation. Whereas 'car' is often used almost in a slang way as shorthand.

Regarding which vehicles are included: I agree with you that sedans (saloons), wagons (estates) and anything based on similar chassis can be referred to as either a car or an automobile. I would not include US style full-size pickup trucks, nor full-size delivery vans. Passenger car based vans and coupe utilities would be a grey area. But the distinction applies equally well to both car and automobile and is a discussion for another time.

To my mind, there is not a great deal to recomend either over the other. If we were arguing about changing 'car' to 'automobile' then I'd probably also resist the change.  Stepho  talk  23:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference between this as and "trunk" or "tire" is that, per WP:ENGVAR, those articles should article should remain at "trunk" and "tire" because there is no term that is shared amongst all varieties of English. However, in this case, WP:COMMONALITY, which trumps ENGVAR, dictates that if a term is shared by all varieties of English, it should be used in preference to dialectal terms. Second of all, Misplaced Pages does not choose names based on their formality, but on how common they are. So it doesn't matter whether "automobile" is the proper name, which it isn't it traditional British usage, where it is considered an Americanism in favor of "motorcar".

Finally, as far as what is a "car" or "automobile", I agree with what you've said. Misplaced Pages guidelines would favor "Car" over "automobile". That's certain. However, I've acknowledge the lack of support for the move, regardless, and have decided to withdraw the proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Automobile is clearer and more precise in this instance. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:12, 14 October 2013 (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.

Not to accuse anyone of bias but when every single opinion is an oppose, except for the nominator, then how do you then get "no consensus"? That's the clearest oppose i've ever seen, in opinion and force. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No consensus in favour of the requested move. And he withdrew the request voluntarily. All done in the proper manner.  Stepho  talk  13:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying...The consensus was no to a move, just semantics. Thanks ツ Jenova20 14:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is standard practice to use the phrase "no consensus" regardless of how many "opposing votes" there are. No requested move is ever closed as "opposed". Instead, one phrases it like was said above "No consensus to move", which means that consensus was against moving the article. As it was, and hence my withdrawal. I mean no subversive intent. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries RGloucester. Devil's advocate and all that. Thanks ツ Jenova20 16:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this article about automobiles or cars?

The proposal to move this page to car failed, partly because "automobile" also refers to other types of vehicle and not just cars, but those opposing the move seem to have not noticed that this page is just about cars, with the wider topic of all road vehicles covered within the vehicle article. If there is a difference, should this article be split? Peter James (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As I linked in that discussion, the idea that "automobile" is different from car is not supported by the OED. Regardless, as far as I can tell, this article is about cars. It is not about heavy trucks/lorries, tractors or anything else of the sort. All those sub-topics have their own articles, and whatever little information on them that exists in this article should most certainly be split off. I don't, however, think there is much to split. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a question for editors who opposed the move - if they are different then based on the current content this should be at car. I don't think that they are, but support the move, based on commonality and common name. The spell checker in Firefox doesn't recognise "automobile", and suggests "auto mobile". Peter James (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is a little late, even if we wanted to move the article and split it, we could not do it for a while, since the previous RM was so near in the past. I mean, we could, but that is usually frowned upon. Of course, my opinion was already pre-determined. Let's see what the others think. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

People, why make something that easy so hard? Let's just integrate a section for "Types of automobiles", so you can refer to trucks, tractors or whatever. :) Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not. Because the OED says that trucks are not automobiles. RGloucester — ☎ 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Safety

I added a link to Low speed vehicle at the safety section, but I think that vehicles that have lower amounts of horsepower (10 HP or less) should be mentioned, as these could allow passing a law for reducing the maximum amount of horsepower on all cars. See Talk:Green_vehicle#Power rating KVDP (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) How stupid indeed. Automobile should cover more than car (judging by comments on the move request). But actually, the other types which it should cover are mostly not addressed in this article. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Horseless Carriage.

Was a common name back in the day. It should be included. 19:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.178.51.136 (talk)

cars

The usage of Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Cars (disambiguation) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

World vehicles per capita

Use the nicer colors of the older PNG file, new colors do not contrast the colors by making the all into shades of green

The better old colors

The horrid new colors

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.105.99 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Horrid? That is a matter of taste - I quite like it. The old image is almost useless for people with red-green color blindness. The new image uses brightness to show the numbers.  Stepho  talk  22:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Misleading caption

The caption of one picture says

Ford Model T, 1927, regarded as the first affordable American automobile

This implies that the 1927 version was the first affordable one, whereas actually that was the 1908 version. I suggest the following replacement caption:

Introduced in 1908, the Ford Model T is widely regarded as the first affordable American automobile. Shown here is the 1927 model.

Also, is the qualifier "American" necessary? 208.50.124.65 (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the picture caption claim as not cited and confusing. Warren (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RM (September 2014)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per WP:COMMONNAME. There was a small number of opposers, based on concerns that "car" has other uses and that "automobile" is the more inclusive term because it also covers pickup trucks etc, but it was pointed out that this would easily be the primary topic for cars, that pickup truck has its own separate article already, and that this article does seem to focus entirely on cars. I will move this article as a result of the RM, but there may be related articles that also need to be moved by other editors for consistency. Number 57 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Number 57 21:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Automobile → Car – Is the word "automobile" a synonym of "car"? Then we should use the common name for it and move this article to car. (In case you live under a rock, yes, "car" is a far more common name than "automobile" in any dialect of our fair language.)

I mean, Misplaced Pages policy is so clear here on using common names that the only argument I can fathom against it (and it is an excellent argument) is that a car is only one specific type of automobile. In that case, we should then put car-specific content at car and leave general content on cars and other automobiles here. If they're not synonyms, then typing in "car" should get you information only on cars, just like duck does not redirect you to bird.

So, what do you think? Split? Move? Or status quo? (Please explain your reasoning if you select the third option. I am not sure I understand what the logic behind the status quo is.) Thanks for your consideration. Red Slash 18:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there won't be a consensus for this. As a car is a car, but a truck is also an automobile. This article uses the technical term. Just last fall this was discussed already, see Talk:Automobile#Requested move. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So, split them? That's a viable option. Red Slash 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Facetious comment, If the article "automobile" wanted to be moved, surely it would have moved itself ... but, on a more serious note, this is possibly the most called for move that I have yet seen.

Support, There are already articles on the topics: History of the automobile, Van and Truck. Finish the following sentences (place them in a context of your choice): "I need a new **". "I crashed/damaged my **". "My ** needs a service". "I'm going to take my ** to the **-wash". We also use terms like: Car-Bomb, Car-Freshner (why is the article called little trees?), Car-Park, Car-Sharing, Car-bomb, Car-free zones, Car-jacking, Car-park, Car-pooling, Car-sharing, Car-sickness etc. However, see the note on "COMMONNAME" at WP:COMMONNAME. Britannica uses automobile.

There were also some bizarre justifications given for the use of "automobile" in the last RM. Of course there are organisations that use automobile in their titles and for good reason. For example: Companies like "The Automobile Association" don't only fix cars. Companies like Saab Automobile have options to make a variety of vehicles operating under their own propulsion. They also make cars. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support - This is a tough one. I was inclined to say no, since the term automobile is often more inclusively used, until I noticed that we do already have pages for truck and motor vehicle and car is very very obviously the most common name. But I can't support more than weakly because I can't get over the nagging feeling that "Automobile" is just the right name for an encyclopedia entry. That's obviously not a good reason one way or another, but it keeps me from fully supporting.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per #Requested move (October 2013). Automobile is more inclusive than "car", covering pickup trucks, etc. There's your car, and your truck in your driveway. A rename will also result in many related article renames that may be more inappropriate than this one. There's also the more exclusive form for automobile, excluding forms of "car" that are not motorcars. So it both includes and excludes other vehicles that car alternately excludes and includes in a different manner. (cars that do not propel themselves, but are horse drawn, or rail drawn, etc, might logically be included in a broad concept "car" article, but not a broad concept "automobile" article) -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• 65.94.171.225 Which article renames? Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• All pages with titles containing automobile -- the categories and general articles ; because "car" is a term than includes non-automobiles, using the term "car" in some of the general articles can imply a switch in scope per my originating comment in this thread. The disambiguations should remain at "automobile", per the same mismatched scoping of the term "car" versus the term "automobile" -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's clear the article deals with cars. Automobile, at least in my experience, is a catchall term for motor vehicles -- including cars, minivans, and vans. Calidum 06:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support This isn't 1940s America anymore. Lugnuts 07:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support - as with the band The Automobiles... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. There seems to be very little doubt that car is the more commonly used term. It also appears that car is an accurate and suitable synonym for automobile, at least insofar as this article is concerned, given that it focuses on smaller passenger vehicles and excludes other self-propelled vehicles like trucks, buses, etc. ╠╣uw  12:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support – A initiated a similar failed discussion above, and I still support the proposition as much as I did then. This is not only the common name, but it also avoids problems of WP:ENGVAR (in British English, the proper term is "motorcar", not "automobile"). In other words, this also satisfies WP:COMMONALITY. RGloucester — ☎ 12:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose As per my October 2013 comments, though of course one of the first names was not only Motorcar but also Autocar: Could add plenty of European uses for Automobile, but admittedly older organisations; include Automobile Association, Royal Automobile Club, Automobile Club de l'Ouest, and Fiat Automobiles. I suspect in most countries, the worry over pick up trucks is slight as they tend to be commercial vehicles/van like rather than car like. Happy to support the consensus. Warren (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, specialist organisations may use it, but the OED lists it as an Americanism (French and Italian companies don't matter, they don't follow English conventions). There were many terms originally, but at this point in time now, which is what matters, it is an Americanism. Take it up with the OED. Regardless, none of that matters, as WP:COMMONALITY trumps any discussion of WP:ENGVAR. We should always used the most common term that is common across dialectal boundaries, and that is "car". Concerns about so-called "pick-up trucks" are unfounded. These have their own article. Lorries are not considered so-called "automobiles" according to the OED. RGloucester — ☎ 16:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The OED is hardly the bible for wikipedia, but I am relaxed about which way this goes (though your comment re European companies is without merit I have to say... they may well be based on British English rather than American English for all you know!). It wasn't that long ago that the Observer Book of Automobiles was a popular British car book, though conversely US car magazine Car and Driver (1955) is more established than Automobile (1986).Warren (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The OED is a bible, says what it says, and is the most reliable source on English language usage. I don't care what foreigners do. I'm a parochial chap. Americanisms are bad. I accept WP:ENGVAR, but in this case, WP:COMMONALITY trumps ENGVAR and dictates that "car" should be preferred regardless of variety. RGloucester — ☎ 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Wow, how is this article still at Automobile?! Prime example of common name. Zarcadia (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The term "automobile" is clear as to referring to motorized vehicles. On the other hand, the word "car" has many uses. It describe a variety of products that include non-motorized railroad vehicles for passengers or freight (Meals are served in the dining car). It is important in all elevators (I am stuck in the car between floors). Many more uses include the cars of transit systems (Anybody heard of the tram cars in San Francisco?), on aerial lifts or ropeways, and even the cars (passenger compartments) of airships or balloons. CZmarlin (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but car already redirects here, and therefore it already has WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over all these minor uses. Red Slash 21:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Car" redirects here and is clearly the primary topic. A hatnote would solve this issue, and what do you know, it already is there and is already functioning now. RGloucester — ☎ 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose — as per CZmarlin. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for opposition. Car already redirects here, and there is already hatnote in place to deal with any disambiguation problems. Regardless, it is clear that "car" in the sense of "motorcar" is the primary topic. RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support move as proposed, as this is unquestionably the common name. Yes, there are clubs and organizations that use the word "automobile" instead of "car" but there are also clubs and organizations that use "equine" instead of "horse." - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This article is about cars rather than about automobiles in general. Andrewa (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an important point. Despite being titled "automobile", the article as it stands is not about automobiles in general, but is about that particular subset of automobiles that most people call "cars". ╠╣uw  12:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You have made an iresting observation about the article being all about "cars". This is because I do not see much discussion or explanation about all the other popular uses of the term "car" - such as in railway rolling stock, elevators in multi story buildings, etc. In any case, it is abundantly clear that these two terms are often used interchangeably. Nevertheless, an encyclopedia entry should use the most precise term. In this case, descriptions of motorized vehicles are best described by a single term: automobile. It does not need any dissambugation when referring to the actual device. This is not the situation with the term "car". It is also worth pointing out that the companies that make these products are commonly referred to as "automakers" as a single word (carmaker is less prevalent in formal writing), while this component in the general economy is described as the automotive industry, and rarely as "car industry". The leading business publication in this subject (not popular enthusiast media) is Automotive News and it has covered the automobile industry since 1925. They also use the terms car, motor vehicles, etc. to describe the product and associated applications, but have been consistently writing about "automobiles" since the early days of the self-propelled passenger vehicles. CZmarlin (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are speaking only for American usage (we call railway rolling stock either "carriages", in the case of passenger stock, or "wagons", in the case of goods stock). In Britain, they would almost never be referred to as "automobiles", nor "automakers". The formal term here is "motorcar". "Automobile" is recognised as an Americanism by the OED. Per WP:COMMONALITY, if there is a term that is common across all different dialects, that term should be used. "Car" is the most common word in every dialect of English for what is described here, and hence should be used. There is no disambiguation issue, which I've tried to explain numerous times. Car does and has redirected here for ages. There is a hatnote in place for those looking for other uses. However, "car" as a word on its own, is almost never used to mean what Americans call a "railroad car" or a "train car". If one is referring to "just plain car", it always means in "motorcar", outside of specialist contexts. If one is referring to what Americans call "train cars", they would say "train cars", not "cars" (unless the context is clear). Regardless of all that, "car" in the sense of "motorcar" is clearly the primary topic and the commonly-used word across dialects, and hence should be the title of this article. RGloucester — ☎ 17:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Clear common name. We're not living in the 1920s. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME and the fact we're in 2014 not 1914 ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as Commonname - but I can see the next discussion will be "should the Motor vehicle article be renamed Automobile" ..... - Arjayay (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's how most people in the world have referred to these things since the 1940's.Mighty Antar (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Car lacks precision, it can refer to several different types of cars, not all of which are motorized. That said, the common meaning of car is a motorized car or automobile, so it should redirect here. PaleAqua (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the thing called a "hatnote"? They say "Car redirects here. For other uses, see..." We already have one of those in place here, as "car" redirects here, as you noted, and is the primary topic. In this case, there is no problem of lack of precision, because the primary topic is clear, the hatnote solves any disambiguation problems, and our guidelines are clear that the primary topic should be titled as such. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

There may be some regional variation of the precise scope of the terms car and automobile. Currently in SYdney, Australia, there's an advertisement for motor vehicle insurance that has a little drama of two men erecting a fence out in the bush when one of them receives a call on his mobile 'phone telling him that his wife has gone into labour, so he borrows his mate's keys and drives off. The voice over then ends you're covered for anyone who drives your car (my emphasis). Interesting thing is, the car in question is very much a commercial ute. In Australian English, car can include the Holden Colorado for example. Andrewa (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Some lateral thinking

This looks like becoming a perennial proposal, despite (or perhaps because of) its having significant support. Before resorting to Andrew's Principle I'd like to try some lateral thinking.

It seems to me that we need an article at car, describing its primary usage as a type of motor vehicle. The long-standing redirect to automobile is not adequate for several reasons. Automobile is a less precise term, covering other vehicles, and is restricted geographically.

Do we have rough consensus on those points at least? Andrewa (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean, to me, a truck/lorry or a van is just as much of an automobile as a car is. So I would sooner have "car" have its own article. I would then (after changing most of the incoming links) turn Automobile into a bird-esque article that's on all sorts of autos. But... if consensus shows that most people consider them synonyms, we can move the article (as I proposed) and simply redirect Automobile to car. That's my question. I would therefore agree with you that car should host an article of some sort, yes. Red Slash 00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal. There should be an article on "car" specifically, and "automobile" should cover all sorts of automobiles as a basic overview. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The article already exists. It's Motor vehicle! Is this possibly an ENGVAR issue? In British English we'd never use the term "automobile" in the first place. Although we know what it means, to us it sounds like an Americanism. The only place you might see it is in technical publications, not in everyday usage. We'd call cars, lorries, trucks, buses etc "motor vehicles" as a general term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The revelation that this "motor vehicle" article exists makes it clear that this article should be titled "car". There is absolutely no excuse, now, for maintaing this title. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good point. This article currently and in its edit history is about cars rather than about motor vehicles generally. That supports the move.

But are motor vehicle and automobile synonymous? I'm not quite sure. Etymologically they may be, but I suspect that in modern usage automobile may be more restrictive. But I hope I'm wrong in this, because if they are indeed synonyms, then the solution is far easier. Andrewa (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Automobile" and "car" are synonyms, so "automobile" should redirect to car. "Automobile" has never referred to lorries. Note that the OED definition for "automobile", which it lists as an Americanism, is "car". RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That's my belief too, thank you for the evidence. But it's at odds with some of the discussion above. Andrewa (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Our encyclopaedia is built on reliable secondary sources, like the OED, not on anecdotal opinions. I've provided the evidence supporting my view, but no one has provided evidence challenging it. That's the way it is in British English. RGloucester — ☎ 04:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. But part of this is that, these sources should lead us to be consistent. And the more I look the more this appears to be a can of worms.

Automobile in my dialect is only ever used when there's an American connection, but confusingly automotive is very much a part of Australian English and is a very general term, as in the article automotive industry to which automotive currently redirects. Automotive engineering would be similar... but wait, that article currently reads in part Modern automotive engineering, along with aerospace engineering and marine engineering, is a branch of automobile engineering (my emphasis), while automobile engineering simply redirects back to automotive engineering. This seems to be an inconsistency in itself.

I think this confusion may be part of our problem here. Is it possible that automobile refers only to cars, while automotive refers to all motor vehicles? Andrewa (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I have changed my mind on one of the points above. Based on discussion above, it seemed that automobile was a more general term than car, but based on the only source cited so far they are synonyms. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, "automotive" is a separate word from "automobile". In fact, "automotive" is not even connected etymologically with "automobile", even though they are both classical compounds. "Automobile" was coined much later, and relies on the Latin "mobilis", whilst automobile relies on the Latin "motivus". That's not what's up for debate, here. No one is arguing for messing with "automotive" and associated redirects/articles. We are arguing only for this article, that it should be at "car", as the most common name and the most common word across al dialects. RGloucester — ☎ 13:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the OED, "automotive" was originally used to refer to any self-propelled vehicle. i.e. it mentions "automotive busses", meaning "busses that can drive without a horse attached". It now means "relating to or concerned with motor vehicles". RGloucester — ☎ 13:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you, that clarifies things. But the basic point remains. Some editors are obviously confused about the scope of the term automobile, and our own articles (particularly but not only automobile engineering etc) are inconsistent as a direct result. And much of the above discussion seems to stem from this same confusion.

Noting that original research is explicitly permitted on talk pages, I think this discussion should have its own section in a talk page somewhere, rather than a subsection of this RM, to which it is relevant but which it has outgrown. Not sure where.

The confusion is probably related to local dialects of English, particularly USA vs The World, and this may itself be enough to justify avoiding the word automobile in all article titles, wherever possible (obviously Automobile Association and the pages it lists can't be changed for example). The meaning of automotive seems relatively clear and universal however. Andrewa (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Awkward funny point

As far as I can tell, Motor vehicle (which is apparently the British version of "automobile", though I wouldn't think twice about saying it myself as an American) is actually written in American English ("license", "motorized"). So maybe it would change. Clearly "automobile" has enough WP:COMMONALITY to be a viable title, so maybe if this page move goes through someone should move motor vehicle here to automobile. Red Slash 03:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer it stay at motor vehicle, with automobile redirected to that page. Calidum 03:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Automobile" has no commonality, given that it is an Americanism. The neutral term "motor vehicle" is best suited for that article, as it is used in every dialect of English as a technical term. RGloucester — ☎ 04:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't an Americanism, since it was quite used in Britain (ie. The Automobile Association). It has simply fallen out of favour in Britain. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the definition of an "Americanism". It hasn't been "in favour" since 1900, and even then was not dominant (there were a plethora of names, such as "autocar", like the magazine). "Motorcar" became the British standard in the Edwardian period, followed by the short-form "motor" (frequently used in the 10s and 20s), and then the short-form "car", which is now predominant. The formal long-form name used in Britain is "motorcar", and never "automobile". RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Motor Vehicle" has other problems, since automobiles are not the only motorized vehicles. Even "motor car" can refer to a type of rail equipment. M/V (motor vessel) are ships (a type of vehicle) that is motorized. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, well, this is all prelude for an RM put over at that article's talk page anyway--I would suggest that after we clean up the incoming links that we redirect Automobile to Motor vehicle (which of course should stay in AmE and at that title until/unless an RM says to move it). Sound good? Red Slash 17:18, 27 September 2014 (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.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Automobile articles
• Top-importance Automobile articles