Wikipedia

Talk:Car/Naming

< Talk:Car
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Coolcaesar in topic RM (September 2014)

Naming (2003)

Mav, you added "The first known use of the word "automobile", was used in an editorial in the New York Times on January 3, 1899." How certain are you about this? Most etymologies seem to indicate it's a French word from slightly before 1899: Webster, Dictionary.com and Online Etymology Dictionary. -Scipius 21:52 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary cites 1895 Pall Mall Gaz. 15 Oct. for the meaning of the word that we are interested in, and 1883 H. GREER Dict. Electricity for a slightly more general meaning. -- Miguel
It's the typical French way for creating neologisms initially this is an adjective that means self-moving : "un vehicule automobile" (self-moving vehicle). Despite the fact that Daimler & Benz where probably the first to sold automobiles the Frenchs where by far the major producers at the end of the 19th century.
Ericd
Indeed, which is why I'm suspicious about the origin of the word being American. Perhaps that was the first time it was attested in the US? -Scipius 17:34 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)
Or in English language, but British papers may well have used the word earlier. By the way, the Belgian Jean Joseph Etienne Lenoir also played a major role in the invention.
Ericd
Here is an interresting link :
Ericd

I've mentioned that the word "car" is more usual in Great Britain and Ireland, but it would be good if we could say how it is in the rest of the world (Australia, NZ, etc). I don't have a clue, I'm afraid. --Camembert

Those two I can say. "Car" is normal NZ and Aussie - I've been telling people I recently bought a car. Automobile is only ever encountered in American movies (it's undestood but not spoken). Irrelevant aside: my car is an "auto" - referring to the Automatic Transmission, hence: "I've got a new car." "Is it an auto?" "Yep, I'm too lazy to change gear." Rest of the english speaking world? Don't know, but I'd guess Car is more common.Tenbaset 00:53 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

"...they are more usually called cars (from the word carriage)..." Actually, without knowing for sure, it seems possible that "car" came directly from the French "char" or possibly even that "carriage" comes from "car" - or both. PML.

I've changed the opening paragraph slightly. While it mentioned cars it made it sound that the main word was automobile and car was just a quaint UK & Ireland word. I've changed it to state up front that automobile is American English and car British English and neither is suggested as being the correct word. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:31 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Why not change it to the singular: motor vehicle? Olga Bityerkokoff

Because that term is not commonly used. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:36 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC) PS: Is that nickname the best you could come up with, Adam?

I live in the United States. Nobody here calls them automobiles in conversation. It's always car. I think we should move this to Car and make automobile a redirection. I just had an interesting read on the origins of the English word car (Latin carrus from a Celtic word, itself from ancient Semitic languages, in turn from Sumerian). 66.27.202.81 00:50 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

If even in the US it is called 'car' I think automobile should definitely redirect to car. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:54 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

I vote for motor vehicle. It would be universally recognized, hence no confusion for anybody. User:Olga Bityerkokoff

"Motor vehicle" is no good - that could mean a motorcycle, or a van, or a jet-ski or anything. I agree with STÓD/ÉÍRE - if "car" is used in the US, the page can be moved there. --Camembert

You are still banned. Your vote doesn't count, 'Olga' whether you are the next Adam creation or the latest in DW's siblings. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:59 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Have to agree -- automobile is slightly more "formal" and "encyclopedic" in American, but "car" is more common in speech. A redirect to car would work well. Goatasaur suggested the same thing on my Talk page.
Re: motor vehicle -- that applies to lots of vehicles that aren't cars or automobiles. Trucks, boats, lunar rovers, etc..... but we could have a Motor vehicle or List of motor vehicles with links to each.
I'm done for the night, so I'll catch up with the consensus later. Catherine 01:02 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

The word "car" was used long before there were any automobiles. Cars were the carriages used in warfare. -- Zoe

What about moving to motorcar or motor car, is that internationally acceptable?

I agree we should move. I may be wrong about this, but I thought that motorcar/motor car is an older terminology, with the shorter car replacing it. I think using it as motor car might be the better of the two options as it would allow searches using car on its own to be directly linked to. (That's if our search engine ever works properly again. An article I renamed six weeks ago still can't be found by a search except under the old name on google! Frustrating or what!!!) ÉÍREman 22:15 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

What's wrong with "automobile"? This is the correct name for this subject and "car" is simply too ambiguous. If this is an American vs. British thing then since this article was first created at automobile then our "no preference" policy on these maters states that automobile is where the article should stay. Otherwise I'm going to move sport to sports. Wouldn't that be fun? --mav

Mav, you missed the debate last week over this. The vast majority of people in the world use the word car and never ever use the word automobile. In fact many have never even heard the word. It isn't a simple case of British english vs American english, not least because car is also used in the US while automobile is not used anywhere else. There is a clear consensus that it makes more sense to put the page on a word used worldwide including the US to leaving it under a word that is an almost exclusively US form. Leaving it here on the basis of it being the first name used here in this instance is pointless because it isn't a question of a slight variation in spelling but two fundamentally different words; one used worldwide including the US, one exclusive to the US. The only question being debated is what to move it to, not whether to move it. ÉÍREman 01:37 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

If this is to be renamed, then it should only be to a better recognised and more common term; in other words, if we're not going to rename it to car then I don't see the point. Any other name is worse than automobile.

Is car all that ambiguous? The only other use of the word that comes to mind is the railroading one, and that's an easy disambiguation; a See Also that points to railroad car or something would take care of that. Or are there other meanings that I'm overlooking? Morven 17:16, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The page lists truck/lorry, (mini)van, and SUV as examples, so this should definitely not be renamed to car. Nobody calls their van or truck a "car", do they? -- Miguel

What's wrong with motor car ? Mintguy 17:38, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If car isn't a workable renaming, I'd suggest leaving it as it is. motor car is just an expansion of car and all the objections to the latter also affect the former. Motor Vehicle is too broad (I don't see discussion of motorcycles etc. on here) and is less obvious than automobile. -- Morven 17:48, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't follow your reasoning with "motor car is just an expansion of car". Car is ambiguous, "motor car" isn't. The word "automobile" is virtually unheard of outside of the United States. What is the objection? Mintguy 17:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Do you know anyone who refers to their vehicle as a motor car? That's my objection, in essence. It's replacing a term used by only some with a term used by almost none, even if it's recognisable to most. -- Morven 17:58, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why do I keep seeing all these ads for cheap motor car insurance then? What about the "Veteran Motor Car Club of America"? Do you know the beatles son "Penny Lane" which goes .. On the corner is a banker with a motor car." to say nobody uses the "motor car" is Bull. Mintguy 18:05, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Not saying it's NEVER used, but it's definitely a rarer used term even than automobile. -- Morven 18:07, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition of automobile, and it does not identify it as American English.
B. n. A self-propelled vehicle; a motor vehicle.
motor car is defined as
A wheeled vehicle or `horseless carriage', propelled by a motor engine and used esp. as a private conveyance on the road; an automobile.
For what that's worth... -- Miguel
Interesting to know. Anyway, I can see everyone's point about automobile being a confined-to-the-USA term, and car being international; since it would be most likely that car will remain a disambiguation page anyway, maybe motor car is the best place after all, as Mintguy suggests. Hmm. -- Morven 22:11, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
No you said "almost by none" which about as close to NEVER asyou can get. So you reckon that it's common to say "I'll just get the automobile out the of garage dear" to your wife? Or you often see adverts for cheap Automobile insurance? The words "motor car" are not an expansion of "car", quite the reverse. "Car" is a contraction of "motorcar" or "motor car". And car is much much more common than automobile. Mintguy 18:19, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ah, I suspect we're arguing at cross purposes anyway. I'd actually prefer car to automobile. But I'd also prefer car to motor car; however, my objection is NOT strong, I'm just argumentative. And yes, car is a contraction of motor car, but it's a contraction that's almost swallowed its larger forebear. And yes, I see ads for cheap Automobile insurance. Really, both terms are sliding towards the archaic. Automobile even in the United States is only used in a formal sense, and not in casual conversation -- it's headed in the same direction as omnibus. Its sole advantage over car is that its usage encompasses not-quite-car four-wheeled transportation such as minivans, pickup trucks etc. which the list on this page includes, as Miguel points out. -- Morven 18:32, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Automobile → Car (2004–2006)

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Car" is the most common term; "car" is used throughout in the article; "car" is what people use in everyday speech throughout the world; and the only earlier discussion on the topic suggested moving the page to "car" with no opposition. jguk 09:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Why not reopen discussion on the talk page first? This page DOES say you should try to reach consensus there first. There are a couple of problems with this move, the first being that a simple move is not appropriate. Automobile and car are not complete synonyms. Automobile refers to all self-propelled vehicles, technically; in actual usage, it refers to all classes of four-wheeled, self-propelled vehicles used for personal transportation, including pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans/MPVs as well as cars. Thus, a refactoring is needed to make an article at car, because car is a subset of the class automobile.
  • The second problem is that there are other meanings for 'car' which don't mean the four-wheeled personal transportation device, including the railroad car, trolley car, etc etc etc. Automobile's virtue is that it IS an unambiguous term. This is a qualified slightly support from me: I support it if you are willing to do a good amount of the work required to make this move really work. Otherwise, you're being an "idea person" and leaving the heavy lifting to others. I suspect that much of the content at Automobile could move to car, but a short article should be left at automobile. —Morven 09:37, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • PS. characterising the previous debate as having 'no opposition' isn't quite the truth. Nobody supported keeping it at automobile, but the non-synonymous nature of the two words was recognised, and there was disagreement about where to move TO. —Morven 09:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I oppose for many of the reasons Morven put forward. Automobile includes all of the relevant vehicles, while car does not and could include non-relevant vehicles. In this world of crossover SUVs and pickup trucks, it is especially wrong to move automobile to car - a large percentage of the motoring world uses non-car automobiles for transportation! --SFoskett 15:19, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose Morven laid down a pretty good case (despite his slight support for the move). Although, I would like to see Automobile article discuss in detail more vehicle types than just the car and truck. —ExplorerCDT 21:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. I'm not sure how Morven's argument gets him to "slightly support" the move, because the same thoughts lead me to the opposite conclusion. "Automobile" includes all the vehicles in question and is unambiguous; "car" is both narrower and ambiguous. Leave the article where it lies. Car should be a disambig page. —Tkinias 21:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. The current car actually points to automobile, which is silly. The bulk of the article is about cars and every single illustration with the exception of the Jeep and the Hummer are recognisable as cars. Move the article to car and then fish stuff out at your leisure to make articles on other kinds of road vehicle. The current article provides very poor coverage of automobiles with the exception of cars and smaller utility vehicles. truck and bus artic/semi, etc, have their own articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, since the opening line reads "An automobile, usually called a car", and has done since April 2003 - and provided that jguk agrees to do consequential clean-up. Icundell 11:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. A move will encourage whatever refactoring is necessary, and long-term lead to better coverage of non-car automobiles. Rd232 14:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To continue the quote above,it runs "An automobile, usually called a car (an old word for carriage) or a truck ..." Car is simply not accurate. - Vague | Rant 07:07, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. This article describes automobiles in general, not merely passenger sedans. ADH (t&m) 23:48, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: Those opposing the move seem to be using the word "automobile" to have a meaning greater than the meaning of "car" which is unfamiliar to me, and also which is not borne out by the article itself. It would be useful if those who believe automobile does have a wider meaning than "car" could add this to the article. jguk 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I've made a very small start, but in honesty the topic needs attention by somebody with far greater knowledge than I. Since most of the content of the article is about cars it would make sense to have it under that title instead, but an article is still needed that talks about vans, cars, trucks, tractors and all automobiles in general. TACD 15:53, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 'Automobile' is unambiguous, but 'car' can refer to any automobile or other types of conveyance (ie. streetcar, elevator car, etc.). Car should be a disambiguation page. —Mike 21:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • support - The term 'Automobile' is an Americanism and is hardly ever used in the UK or many other English speaking countries. For the sake of internationalism it should be moved to 'Car'. G-Man 19:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose present term is unambiguous and inclusive of only those items we want to include and not of all 'cars' (such as railway cars, etc). Note also that 'Automobile' is not an americanism: the AA:'Automobile Association' and RAC:'Royal Automobile Club'. Historically and for accuracy, 'automobile' is way better than 'car' --Vamp:Willow 20:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - agree with supporting comments above. Timrollpickering 23:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A car is a different thing than an automobile. People say cars when refering to cars, vans when refering to van-like vehicles, and trucks, jeeps, suv's. Car should have its own article, if those others do (which i didnt check if they do. if they just link to automobile, it is even less reason to move it.) SECProto 03:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - automobile is an Americanism (it's long long fallen out of use in UK/Irl). Motor vehicle encompasses those non-car automotive road units. zoney ♣ talk 22:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then propose a move to motor vehicle (I might support this), but car is grossly inaccurate when your article discusses a class of machines of which semi tractors are a part. Automobile is just as uncommon in colloquial American speech as it is in the U.K., but where accuracy is concerned no Subject I know would speak of "cars" when referring to lorries and vans. (In fact, just recently I heard a BBC reporter refer to "automobile manufacturer Peugot," so apparently the insidious Americanization conspiracy has infiltrated the highest echelons of British nationalism; in this case I think it's too late anyway, and expect to see you all driving SUVs by the end of the week.) ADH (t&m) 23:56, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both car, automobile and auto for short are used in English Canada. People speak equally of "car insurance" or "auto insurance" or "automobile insurance". There is no doubt that in common speech "car" is used more frequently, but as many have pointed out the word "car" has umpteen other meanings such as "street car", "elevator car". Motor vehicle is also broader than "car". Does anybody ever consult a dictionary nowadays?" The Ontario Highway Traffic Act, defines "motor vehicle" as including an automobile, motorcycle, motor assisted bicycle unless otherwise indicated in this Act, and any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include a street car, or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry or road-building machine within the meaning of this Act. As for the UK, I notice the main road associations are still called "Automobile Association" and "Royal Automobile Club", "British Automobile Racing Club". The abbreviation "auto" seems to be rarely used in the UK. "Car" is much preferred on the gov.uk websites. However, Motor vehicle is used quite a bit by the UK government --BrentS 01:01, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Automobile is the technical term for it and should be used in resources such as Encyclopedias. What is refered to as a car is only one type of automobile. The term "car" is also too ambiguous [1]. Norman Rogers\talk 02:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The arguments against are more convincing to me that those for using 'Car'. As a matter of fair disclosure ... I'm an American. Courtland 00:51, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
  • Oppose If anything, we should have car as a separate article, because automobile refers to more than just cars. 64.192.107.242 02:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Clackmannanshireman 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Article renaming (June-September 2009)

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments12 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was: No move. Consensus not to move to Personal ground vehicle or to Car. Station1 (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Automobile → Personal ground vehicle — I suggest to rename the article to personal ground vehicle. This is more in line with another article called personal air vehicle— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.6.252 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The definition can be altered stating that a personal ground vehicle, or car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor.

automobile can be made into seperate article stating that auto + mobile meaning self moving refers to any vehicle which is wheeled and moves on its own (eg by itw its own motor)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.6.252 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I take it this is some sort of joke. Who is going to type in "Personal ground vehicle" to find this article. Just because there is another obscurely named article about aircraft is no need to destroy this title. Malcolma (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I also suggest that we close this discussion per WP:SNOW. --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Automobile → Car —

  • Personal ground vehicle sounds logical but silly, a move to car is thus more appropriate. motor car is btw also inaccurate; this needs to be motor carriage; car already means motorized carriage. User:81.245.84.68 12:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Automobile is a more accurate representation of the article than car. Car is typically associated (in this current day & age) with sedans, coupes & roadsters and not trucks, SUVs & Crossovers. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Automobile a good representation of the various types of passenger vehicles that are discussed, rather than "car" or personal ground vehicle! – CZmarlin (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose "What's wrong with automobile?" `nuff said.
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:08, 30 August 2009 (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 (October 2013)

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion
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)

  • 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 (email) 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 any time you're ready, Uhura 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 Wikipedia, 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, Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 (email) 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 (email) 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 (email) 16:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

RM (September 2014)

Latest comment: 8 years ago71 comments25 people in discussion
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)

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, Wikipedia 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)
  • 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 Talk To Me 06:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't 1940s America anymore. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 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 [talk] 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)
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 [talk] 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 [3] reads in part Modern automotive engineering, along with aerospace engineering and marine engineering, is a branch of automobile engineering (my emphasis), while automobile engineering [4] 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 Talk To Me 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.

Post-closure discussion

  • Somehow, I missed this one, but would have opposed the change. A week seems rather short a time for a change like this, and an RFC would have been a better method. For starters, "Car" has a lot more uses than to just mean automobile (railroad car, etc). This is a step backwards. Dennis 2¢ 09:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
It comes down to WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. "Car" already redirected here, and there was already a hatnote directing people to "other uses" if they were looking for them. However, there is no doubt at all that car primarily means "motor car", and that most people would not call a car an "automobile" (especially considering it is an Americanism and a formalism). Whilst I'm British, and don't call railway carriages or wagons "cars", I'm aware that even in American usage, these would not be called "just-plain" cars, unless, of course, the context was clear. This is verified by the OED, which says that "motor car" is the "usual sense" of the word "car", and that the sense of "railway wagon or carriage" is an Americanism that is only used usually used "with a distinguishing word". In other words, it is very rare for someone to say "car" and mean "railway carriage or wagon". They'd usually say "train car", in my experience with Americans. There is no justification for retaining an outdated Americanism as the title of this article. Going through it, I was shocked by the use of "automobile" consistently in places where "car" would've sufficed. It seems un-natural, even for Americans, who do not even use the word on a regular basis. Let's try and keep up with the times, shall we? RGloucester — ☎ 13:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, your civility needs work. Americans are more likely to use "automobile" rather than car than Brits, but lets not make this a bashing of cultures. I'm tied up today, but considering an RFC. It isn't old fashioned on this side of the pond, with over 300 million people, and where most "car" related businesses use "automobile" or "auto" and not "car" in their titles. I could bore you with hundreds of titles, but suffice it to say it is common enough to warrant a pause. Meanwhile, you are personalizing this entirely too much, and would do good to assume my actions are in good faith. Oh, and car is more "old fashioned" than automobile, being the shortened version of "horseless carriage" or "carriage", so I don't think "fashion" of any kind is relevant here. Dennis 2¢ 23:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not "personalising" anything. It is quite simple. A requested move discussion has just closed in favour of moving this article to the title Car. There are no grounds for an RfC. The discussion has been had, and is finished. To open an RfC right after the closure of the RM is a form of tendentious editing. These arguments have already been had, and I'm not going to launch into the title debate again. If you have an issue with how the RM closed, please do request a move review. Otherwise, please accept the consensus that was decided, even if it is not to your liking. I did this very thing a year ago, when the prior requested move failed. Once again, I'm sorry that you could not participate in that dialogue, but that dialogue is now finished for the time being. As far as "old-fashioned", I believe you are quite aware of what I meant. Another attempt at tendentiousness, I presume. RGloucester — ☎ 23:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Tendentiousness? For expressing an opinion? I didn't revert anything, I didn't change anything, this makes my 5th post on the subject, ever. You don't see to understand what that word means. We have a page on it, WP:TE, if I've violated something in that, please point it out specifically. Yes, personalizing. Now that I understand this is something you've been trying to accomplish for a year, I better understand, but my participation isn't about you. Regardless, you haven't dissuaded me from considering an RFC. Dennis 2¢ 23:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
"Trying to do it for a year"? I started a requested move once, a year ago. I did not pursue it further, until someone else had the same idea and started an RM in the past two weeks. Your suggestions are "tendentious" because they represent an inability to accept consensus decided by usual Wikipedia processes. Instead of accepting the result of the requested move, you are requesting an RfC two days after that discussion closed because of your own personal inability to have participated in that discussion. Accept the result, or question it legitimately in a move review. Do not try to skirt around the reality, which is that the move discussion closed in favour of "car", and that that's that. Once again, I apologise for your inability to participate. However, that does not mean we hold the decisions made my consensus hostage for one editor's sake. RGloucester — ☎ 23:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
If I can ignore your comments for a bit: I went to withdraw my opposition as I plan to create an RFC anyway, but see that I'm not the only one that was caught by surprise by the change, showing why it should have been done as an RFC to begin with. Withdrawing now would be pointless. Any change this major should always be by RFC. It is fine to poll on the talk page of the article to get a feel, but the fact that last year it was opposed and this year it passed clearly shows that the talk page discussion may not actually reflect wiki-wide consensus, and only the consensus of the few that stumbled by that week. See WP:CONLIMITED. If an RFC concludes that "car" is the better word, of course I would live with that. I've not made any move except to overturn, just to stop for a day, and since I'm not the only one, (and I'm not prone to fly off the handle) you have to at least consider there is a reasonable doubt whether this reflects true consensus. Dennis 2¢ 00:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Utterly absurd. Absolutely and utterly absurd. This change was no more major than any other requested move. We have the requested move process for a reason. There is no "reasonable doubt". An RfC opened at this moment would be forum-shopping, and nothing less. RMs are just as open to all of Wikipedia as RfCs. There is no such thing as "true" consensus. There is the consensus determined in the requested move discussion, as appropriate, and as according to Wikipedia processes. Perhaps you should read WP:CONLIMITED yourself, and see that it does not apply here in the way you mention. The move was based in policy and guidelines, which are equivalent to "Wiki-wide" consensus. You are either implying that this move was not policy-based (though that's not your decision make, given that it has been closed otherwise), or that changing the name of this article is equivalent to changing a "policy or guideline" as WP:CONLIMITED states. It certainly is not "equivalent to changing a policy or guideline", and policy reasons were given and found to be worthwhile by the third-party closer. This The RM followed all these processes to the letter, and hence should stand, unless you think of a reason to contest the closure in a move review. Adding in layers of bureaucracy, as you intend to do here, is tantamount to forum-shopping and runs in contrast to the spirit of Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Concern about Categories Hatnotes are nearly useless in the category area because they don't appear in HotCat where articles are actually applied. I don't have a strong opinion on the article name per se but, in the category space, "car" is ambiguous and hatnotes or this talk page are unlikely to be referenced. This is an extremely large category tree that currently uses "car", "automobile", "auto", and "motor vehicle" in different sub-categories and applying this article rename to the categories deserves careful consideration. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's discuss category concerns at the category's talk page, or in a CFD. Personally, I do not share your concern, given the existence of Category:Road vehicles. It has many subcategories, only one of which is Category:Automobiles. The "automobile" category is clearly about what we call "cars", and not about lorries or other stuff, which all have their own sub-categories of the road vehicles category (i.e. Category:Trucks). RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What? I'm really surprised this ran for such a short time, and am thinking WP:Move review. I see some weird arguments (and invective) above about locomotives and crap, but that has nothing to do with the issue here. "Automobile" includes cars, pickup trucks, SUVs and crossovers, vans and minivans, etc. Virtually everything about them, from manufacture to licensing and regulation, are the same, but they're not all "cars". Even if a simple head-count was in favor of the move, it doesn't work from a WP:COMMONSENSE or WP:RS perspective, and should have been declined.
Two problems, fellow, which you might've understood if you read the discussion. Firstly, this article only dealt with what are called "cars", and still does. Other things, like lorries, have their own articles, and there is a broader article, motor vehicle, which deals with the broad concept. Secondly, according to the OED, "automobile" does not include lorries (or what Americans call "pick-up trucks/SUVs. &c). In fact, the OED says that "automobile" means "a car". The words mean exactly the same thing, according to the most reliable English dictionary in the world. I do not know where you draw your obscure definition of this word from, but sadly, it does not align with reality, or with the most reliable source on the English language. This move is both common sense and policy-based. It is the common name, and it satisfies WP:COMMONALITY, because it avoids using a dialectal term. It is also much more WP:CONCISE. RGloucester — ☎ 12:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Concur with above criticism of move. I just became aware of this very unwise article move. Automobile is the more appropriate and less confusing title for the subject of this article. The fact that it came on the heels of an unsuccessful move and that an RfC was not requested, especially at a public forum like the village pump, is highly suspicious and indicative of possible wikilawyering and other inappropriate conduct. The editors responsible should be carefully monitored for a pattern of similar conduct. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Related articles/lemmas

Hi, what about related articles such as History of the automobile now? They should also be moved coherently, shouldn't they? Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the Category:Automobiles to be renamed under WP:C2D, but some who did not agree with the page move are obfuscating what clearly falls under the speedy category move criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 17:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Car/Naming&oldid=1142755298"