# Talk:1950s American automobile culture

There is at least one source here that has been published by iUniverse. That publisher is a vanity press, so WP:SPS will need to be considered. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Which source?  I've got piles of books on the subject, finding a better source isn't a problem.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Martin H. Levinson (May 2011). Brooklyn Boomer: Growing Up in the Fifties. iUniverse. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-1-4620-1712-6. Retrieved 1 December 2012. It's one heck of an article you've been working, Dennis - kudos for that. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I can replace that easily, or perhaps just add to it.  Not all self published books are bad, as I'm sure you know.  I've tried hard to not only use good sources, but use a variety of them as well, some of which are "weaker" perhaps, but quality nonetheless.  I will work on that later today.  Thanks for the heads up. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 12:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an existing paragraph at United_States_in_the_1950s#Vehicles which will benefit from a link to this article when it hits article space!
And my comment on the apostrophe: "1950's" is either "of the year 1950" or  "1950 is/has" (unencyclopedically colloquial). Looking at other usage in WP such as 1960s decor and List of 1960s UK Singles Chart number ones suggests that even if "1950s'" might be grammatical, it's not used. So no apostrophe, please. PamD 12:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Couple of suggested books/articles:

Marling, Karal Ann (1994). As Seen on TV: The Visual Culture of Everyday Life in the 1950s. Harvard University Press. (In particular the chapter "Autoeroticism: America's love affair with the car in the television age.")
Martin, R. (1997). Fashion and the Car in the 1950s. Journal of American Culture, 20(3): 51–66.
Gartman, David (1994). Auto Opium: A Social History of American Automobile Design. Routledge.
Keri (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for the tips!  Time to hit amazon and see if I can find a dead tree version on the cheap.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 13:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Kenneth (1980) Cars and Films in American Culture, 1929-1959. Michigan Quarterly Review, 19(4): 588-600
Keri (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm parking here the material that doesn't seem to me to be obviously culture related.

Not all of these will be used in the main article now, so parking here. Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ouch!  But makes perfect sense.  Some parts of this may find a way back, but not in the the current form, and only in areas that tie into culture, as you say.  You have basically done what I knew needed to go into the other article anyway, so I understand and agree.  Now we need to definitively define the scope here.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 18:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I do think some part talking about the HHR and the old suburban, which the images show quite well, might be worthwhile as a lingering influence.  Lingering influences being synonymous with being a part of the culture still now.  Not sure how to properly address the idea of lingering influences though.  Same with the idea of old models that have stuck around, as well as retro style in general.  Granted, the current Camero and Mustang are more 60s influenced than 50s, but if we expand the decade to the generic, that is worth a few paragraphs.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 18:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
This. There is an article on panel trucks that seem to be tied to the idea of a "50's look". That "Lingering..." section seems to be decent enough to be a part of "cultural" article.
 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ford had introduce the flathead V8 engine 1932, and it quickly had gained popularity, but the 1950s saw the most dramatic changes in the V8 in both reliability and power with the introduction of  the Chevrolet small block 265 cubic inch overhead value engine.  The "small block Chevy" became the basis for a subculture that still exists, and this engine is the same foundation for the V8 engines still in use by General Motors today.  The original 265 cubic inch engine with a two-barrel carburetor produced 162 horse power, and 1957, the engine had been increased to 283 cubic inches, including one fuel injected version that produce 283 hp, the first engine to have a ratio of 1:1 horse power versus cubic inches.  The muscle car era started in the 1950s, fueling America's thirst for larger engines, which themselves became an indication of status. 
Something like this that can be added with with other cultural aspects of the V8. This should tie into the "hot rod" section, as well as the aftermarket section somehow, being the most modified engine of all time.  I don't know, but thinking something needs to be in there considering the small block chevy culture is still with us.  Mine is a Gen III LQ4, 6.0L 364cid, 300hp/360lbft with iron block and aluminum heads, with 4.10 gears.  Yes, it is a subculture. ;)  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 19:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I need to work on this more.  There is something to be included on the V8, just not sure how and where.  It is shaping up nicely, I don't want to mess that up with an awkwardly worded section mashed into it.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 07:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Try starting the section with the last sentence on muscle cars, which is the cultural aspect here. Then a little bit about the V8 should slot straight in. Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I added a section before I caught this, but it is inline with your suggestion.  I still need to add a sentence or two about the status afforded by having a V8, and how anything less was considered "less".  Need good sourcing for that though.  This is starting to really shape up, you have no idea how appreciative I am.  I've already learned a great deal.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 15:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
It's shaping up very nicely. I think once you get your citations in the new sections sorted out you'll be ready for prime time and your (first?) DYK. Harder than it looks writing a decent article, strange that content editors are generally considered to be second-class citizens at best. Malleus Fatuorum 15:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I've always held content creators in the highest regard, although you are correct that some others do not.  I expect to periodically work on serious content like this in the future.  It has been a tremendous learning experience that every admin should take part in periodically.  I'm still pouring through the diffs to figure out my mistakes, but this will serve as a guide for me in the future.  I agree, it is likely just a few days away from main space.  This has a long way to go before it can make GA or FA, but I think it has the potential with a little time and help from my friends. The trimming you did helped me get focused, and I'm very appreciative of the time and patience you've generously given me, Malleus.  Btw, I do have three DYKs, two of which are recent, but no GAs/FAs.  Yet.   I've started twenty new articles since becoming an admin, eight months ago, in part to overcome some of the concerns expressed at my RfA, when I had only 19 to my credit.  Nothing special so far, but I am making the effort to move beyond mediocrity.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 02:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Now an insurer, Allstate had early life as a car." SouthtownStar (Chicago, IL) December 24, 2010.
Jedlicka, Dan. (September 22, 1996.) "On the road with Sears." Chicago Sun-Times.
Keri (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
For the Crosley:

Jedlicka, Dan. (July 4, 1999) "The innovative Crosley auto was way ahead of its time." Chicago Sun-Times.
Keri (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I will work those in.  I also bought a book on the Crosley brothers 2 months ago [1] with the goal of improving several articles, but have only started reading it.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 15:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting book at [2].  Found it at $225 new /$28 used on Amazon, so I won't be buying that one.  At work, so putting info here on talk page for homework later, plus a few other sources to sort out.
Page 12:

In 1949, industry production reached a record 6,253,651 units.
"by the mid 1950s, the horsepower race was in full swing"
sales of small imports began to take off
"Factories supported race cars and even built special purpose cars" (page 12)
In 1958, the Automobile Information Disclosure Act required all new cars to display a window sticker listing the make, model, serial number and a suggested retail price."
The Recession of 1958 saw auto sales fell 31% compared to sales in 1957 (page 12)making 1958 the worst auto year since World War II[3]. Unemployment in Detroit stood at a high of 18.3% that year ([4])

Page 25:

The post war car buying boom was damped by production restrictions due to the Korean War.
NADA called for fought government mandated price controls and fees, and began urging dealers to adopt a uniform code of ethics, due to the popular belief that dealers were unethically generating too much profit.
Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 19:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Once in main space, I would like to see a DYK come of this, since there are some interesting facts here.  Pondering hooks:
Did you know...

...that in the 1950s, you could buy a car at Sears?
...that in the 1950s, you could buy a car in an appliance store?  (with image of Crosley next to fridge)
...that Robert Schuller started the first drive-in church in 1955?
...the first shopping malls were built in the 1950s?
Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 16:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to include the title of the article in the hook, with a link, so none of those would be approved. Could be tricky. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
What about something like:
... that 1950s' American automobile culture spawned the now familiar McDonalds double-arch sign, as it was easier to see from the road?
Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I just stumbled across this page, which would be linked to the article on M-1 (Woodward Avenue) for its explanations of "cruising" and the like. I like the original hooks, and I'd pipe a link to this article to the text "in the 1950s" in the hook. Imzadi 1979 →  23:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
That might be considered an easter egg, but maybe worth a shot. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
...that 1950s' American automobile culture gave us the McDonalds double arch sign and suburbia?
Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 00:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's good, I'd go with that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to sleep on it, but very likely that is what I will do. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've added redirects for "1950's.." and "1950s...".  I think that is all that is needed.  Not sure we really need redirects with "car" substituted for "automobile", although it is just as used as automobile in casual conversation. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 02:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Motels
1/6 workers were directly or indirectly in the autoindustry (some is in the above removed sections)
Labor unions, peak of influence and percentage of workers in unions were in the 1950s
Steel strike in 58 I think.
Korean war shortages, recession of 58 (not sure how they would fit, needs research)
Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Woodward Dream Cruise is an annual event in Detroit and its suburbs that allows participants to relive parts of the 1950s cruising scene. It goes along with the Motorsports stuff and hot rods, but it's not quite represented here yet. Imzadi 1979 →  03:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to lose the greengrocer's apostrophe from the title before launching this into mainspace. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a greengrocer's apostrophe, it's correct. As in "American automobile culture of the 1950s". A redirect from the incorrect "1950s American automobile culture" would be good as well though. Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I took out the apostrophe only because that seems to be the most commonly used way to do articles here, searching 1950s compared to 1950's article titles.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 22:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Now I'm confused, per Malleus's "the decade owns" comment on his page, which does makes more sense.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Apostrophe is back in.  It can be debated later, but I think Malleus is correct.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 23:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Aargh! It's a greengrocer. See WP:DECADE. --MarchOrDie (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not. Have you read what Fowler has to say about what he calls possessive puzzles? Malleus Fatuorum 06:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I haven't. Even if it was a possessive (and such isn't Wikipedia's style) it'd have to be "1950s' American automobile culture". DECADE is clear that apostrophes aren't used in decades, and there are many thousands of articles whose names reflect this usage. We use "1950's" to mean "of the year 1950", but never to show a decade. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It is a possessive, and Fowler would agree with you that it should be "1950s'", a point I conceded earlier to Ryan Vesey on my talk page. But I have a suspicion that when the non-culture stuff is stripped out it'll become obvious that the scope of this article should be American automobile culture in general, not just the 1950s, and so I think this naming issue will become irrelevant in due course. Malleus Fatuorum 06:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
On reflection I'm not so sure about the scoping of this article; it may well make sense to focus on the 1950s, depending on what's available in the general literature. Malleus Fatuorum 06:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
It's a lovely article, and its future quality depends on defining the scope. The 1950s were certainly a golden age in American car culture and it may make sense to broaden it into a more general summary of this part of Ameican culture. As you say, it depends on the sources. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I have already broadened the scope somewhat by including events before the 1950s that become popular primarily in the 50s, ie: drive-in theater, putting the center of the cultural changes in the 1950s, which I think makes sense and arguably, that decade was the most influential.  But I'm not opposed to broadening the subject to cover the general subject of how the automobile change American culture as a generic subject matter.  That is arguably a larger and more comprehensive article and will require work.  In some ways, it would be easier, as it would allow some of the "technology" features that had a cultural impact, such as "cruise control", to have a more comprehensive section, similar to what I've already done, with it covering the invention in the 1700s, all the way to the current implementation, which traces its roots to a 1945 patent and its first installation in a 1958 Imperial, and (not currently included) its ubiquitous use as a gasoline saving device in the 1970s forward. We are in no hurry, but I'm on the fence as to which way to define the scope. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I would also add that many of our current supporting/linked articles are virtually worthless for building this article, due to a severe lack of sources.  Perhaps this could be helpful to get those articles up to a better quality level once completed, as I've had to build what we have here virtually from scratch. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 16:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand that "1950s'" is possessive for the 1950s decade, but, is possessive really necessary? Why can't "1950s" be a descriptor (that carries possessive implication!?) as in these articles: 1920s Berlin, 1960s Sicilian Mafia trials, 1970s energy crisis, 1990s UK local government reform, and 2000s commodities boom? (In fact I can't find an example on WP of title starting with a plural possessive decade like "1950s'"; maybe I don't know how to search it correctly.) If the article titles listed are okay, and it's true the apostrophe possessive isn't really needed and a descriptor can do the job, then IMO "1950s American auto[...]" is simpler and less fussy-looking. (I'm late chiming in on this, sorry.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Because 1950s is a plural. The fact that someone has misnamed 1920s Berlin is neither here nor there. Would you equally argue for "childrens clothes" as opposed to "childrens' clothes"? What's obviously throwing people here is the idea of numbers being possessive, but in what sense are numbers different when they're referring to years or decades? Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, the one thing with dates is that they often act as adjectives.  1916 college football season is an example.  I doubt that 1950s' American automobile culture is incorrect, but I also think 1950s American automobile culture is correct.  One is making 1950s possessive and owning the American automobile culture, the other is making 1950s an adjective and describing the American automobile culture. Ryan Vesey 02:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
But which leaves open the ambiguity of "1950s" referring to the year 1950 or the decade. Why is it so tough to use the grammatically correct construction, even though other Wikipedia articles may not choose to do so? Malleus Fatuorum 04:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
There's no ambiguity, as "1950's" refers to the year, and "1950s" to the decade. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
"1950s" refers to the plural noun, not to the possessive plural. As in "Hot rodding became popular in the 1950s", as opposed to "1950s' hot rodding has had an enduring influence on American car culture". Apostrophes have two purposes, neither of which is to eliminate ambiguity. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say "children's clothes" (I'm sure you meant "children clothes" versus "children's clothes", since "children" is already plural of course). But even then, can "children" sometimes be used as adjective?: "The Curiosity made an unbelievable find today—discovering what appears to be a collection of Martian coins, and a stash of Martian children clothes!"  Anyway, I guess question is, is "1920s" in 1920s Berlin okay to use as adjective (i.e., incorrect or just not preferred)? (I think the reason there are multiple examples in use is as mentioned the adjective lends some implicit possessiveness so steals some of the job of the apostrophe; and if it's really incorrect, continued use ends up changing dictionaries right, and maybe we're already there!?) Just thoughts. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was that this discussion is pointless, because the correct title is "1950s' ...". That other article titles are grammatically incorrect is a matter for them. And if you can make up a sentence in which the word "children" is correctly used as an adjective I'll give you a gold star. Malleus Fatuorum 04:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
That'd go for a lot on international eBay (gold star from you), but I wouldn't sell it I'd frame it. So I'll give it a go ... "The evil ogre ate spiders and armies. But his favorite dishes were wizards' gizzards, priests porridge, and children chowder." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I hate to butt in, and I could care less about an apostrophe, but it should be "priest porridge" and "child soup".  As an adjective, you would *always* use the singular, no matter how many children were used in the soup.  The plural is for the noun. Point to Malleus.  The Steve  09:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Thx. 'Twas just a try. (But what about eggs benedict!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Eggs is a noun.  The "Benedict" describes the cooking style/method of preparation.  Like "Cheddar Cheese" or "Deep-fried butter", only the named bit is on the other side of the eggs, because English is flexible that way.
Okay. (But what about pickled pigs feet!? Or Cherries jubilee/cherries jubilee!?) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The 's' in pigs feet is a possessive 's', not a plural 's'.  As in, the pickled feet of a pig.  Cherries jubilee is the same as eggs benedict, its a way to prepare it.  I'll give you a quarter point for this one, however, as "jubilee" seems to be heading for noun status. (English is pretty flexible that way.)  However, even though children may like such a treat, they aren't added to it.  Also note that the nounized jubilee in my example is (correctly) using both the singular cherry and the singular peach as adjectives. ;)  The Steve  08:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh. Took me over two days coming up with "cherries jubilee", so I'd like to hang onto it, feeling it is my best chance to wrest the gold from Malleus. (So, here goes "logical argument" mode ...) I don't understand the value of your "peach cherry jubilee" recipe cite, for example, I can find 100 recipe cites for "pickle[d] pigs feet" not having an apostrophe, but I'm supposing that fact carries no weight, since every dictionary entry I look up has an apostrophe making it possessive. Specifically, I've found two dictionary entries for "cherries jubilee" (here and here), and was able to find none for "cherry jubilee". So, I don't see how a recipe cite trumps that (since it doesn't for "pigs feet"). Without a dictionary entry for "cherry jubilee", and with two for "cherries jubilee", how can you assert that "cherry jubilee" is "(correctly) using the singular cherry", where I think you're implying "cherries jubilee" (as in the dictionary defs and undoubtedly in many many recipe cites) is not? (I even don't understand how you can assert "cherry jubilee" is correct, when I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a single dictionary entry to support that.) There's no question that "jubilee" is a noun (right?), so I'm not sure what you mean by "heading for noun status" -- do you mean the word "cherries" preceding "jubilee" somehow changes its noun status? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I apply one very simple test; would it make sense to rephrase "cherries jubilee" as "jubilee of cherries"? I'd say it doesn't, but it does make sense to rephrase "1950s' American car culture" as "American car culture of the 1950s". As for cherries jubilee why isn't it "cherry jubilee" anyway? We don't say "strawberries tart" for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, Americans say goat milk and quail eggs while British people prefer goat's milk and quail's eggs. Never the theoretically more accurate goats' milk or quails' eggs in either country. It just goes to show that language is an open-source project which evolves and diverges over time, and as such can appear fairly chaotic. Try explaining to a learner that the correct possessive pronouns are "its" but "one's". Any centralised project like ours has to strike a sensitive balance between presciptive and descriptive grammar. My own current bugbear is the profusion of possessive names apostrophed as though they were plurals just because they end in "s". I already mentioned Dickens' as an example, and I just recently saw Maus'. It's a funny old game. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm decidedly lost here ... That test seems to be about if the word serves as possessive adjective. But am not trying to demo that, only that it serves as adjective modifier. In "silver sailboat", both words are nouns, and "sailboat of silver" probably makes no sense. But "silver" is singular noun used as adjective. In "cherries jubilee", same thing, except "cherries" is plural noun. In "1950s American auto[...]", it's a plural noun again acting as modifier (adjective), even though "American auto[...] of the 1950s" also suggests the possessive "1950s' Amierican auto[...]". My task step was trying to find a plural noun used as modifier; I think I did that for "cherries". (As to why it isn't "cherry jubilee" in the real world, I don't have conjecture for the reason for that, but it isn't.) p.s. It was the British who cooked up "cherries jubilee"! (Pun intended.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm British, but I've never heard of "cherries jubilee". The point I'm making is a very clear distinction between plurals and possessives; Does "jubilee of cherries" make sense to you? Yes or no? Does "American automobile culture of the 1950s" make sense to you? Yes or no? Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
So cherries jubilee is a very interesting case, because it's fairly recent.  What it actually means is: "Cherries prepared in a special way for the Jubilee celebration."  Just as eggs Benedict is "Eggs prepared the same way Mr. Benedict ordered them".  These are shortcuts, and here we can actually see the English evolving.  Jubilee is evolving into "a flambeed fruit dish, with the fruit as the adjective, and so we have peach jubilee or strawberry jubilee.  So yes, "jubilee of cherries" makes sense to me.  Ultimately, English is a hugely flexible and continuously changing language, so it really makes little difference whether you use an apostrophe or not.  The important thing is to have redirects from every option :D  The Steve  22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, the dessert is British origin. To answer Qs, does "jubilee of cherries" make sense to me? Let's say my answer is 'no'. (Fact is, after Thesteve's reply, I'm not sure.) And, does "American auto[...] of the 1950s" make sense? Yes. But I don't follow exactly the point being made... That "[...] of the 1950s" makes sense, demands that a possessive exists: "1950s' American auto[...]". Okay. But "cherries jubilee" uses plural noun ("cherries") as modifier. Is your point that "1950s" is somehow precluded from being used as plural modifier ("1950s American auto[...]") for the reason that "[...] of the 1950s" makes sense? If so, why does that have to be the case? What precludes there from being two correct ways to express: one as possessive plural ("1950s' American auto[...]"), the other as plural noun modifier ("1950s American auto[...]", same as "cherries jubilee")? (Is there rule precluding more than one way, even though there may be only one way for "cherries jubilee", where "jubilee's cherries" is not correct? [I guess that's the point. Am not trying to be intentionally dense!]) Now my turn to ask a question of you ... Can you confirm that you agree or not that "cherries jubiliee" is correct form? (You mentioned you never heard of the dessert and wondered why it wasn't "cherry jubilee". But I found two dictionary entries for "cherries", and no entry for the singular "cherry".)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
(←)  Cherries jubilee is the correct form.  Cherries is the noun, jubilee is the modifier.  I am mostly speculating that jubilee is being nounized.  Living languages change all the time, and things like apostrophes get dropped from use just because it's easier.  That's why we're having this discussion.  One of the challenges of writing an online encyclopedia is that it's at a dynamic junction of popular usage and formal grammar.  The Steve  02:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I agree "cherries jubilee" is correct form (two dictionary entries). But I still don't understand "is being nounized", when "jubilee" is already a noun. Hypothetic (including some words maybe): "Each of the guests in turn gave their dessert order to the waiter: Bob ordered cherries jubilee, Carol ordered peaches jubilee, Ted ordered strawberries jubilee, and Alice ordered artichokes jubilee." Etc. (Blueberries jubilee, oranges jubilee, bananas jubilee, apples jubilee ...) You're saying what comes before "jubilee" is not a modifier!? Also, here's a perverted Q ... What is the correct plural form? "Bob ordered and ate a single serving of cherries jubilee. Ditto Carol. Ditto Ted. Ditto Alice. So all told, four cherries jubilees were ordered and eaten that evening." (No?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
In this case, jubilee is an attributive noun, and it is in fact labeled as such in my 1971 Oxford (6. Attrib. and Comb., as jubilee-bonfire, esp in reference to 1887 and 1897).  Unfortunately, it's on the uncomfortable side of the actual noun, and that is where all the confusion comes from.  It is because of this placement that the attributive noun is changing from the jubilee to the fruit.  Your choices are "four orders of cherries jubilee" or "four cherry jubilees".  "Cherries jubilees" should simply be avoided, for the same reason that "children" cannot be used correctly as an adjective.  You could also use "jubilee cherries" or "jubilee-cherries", which are also used, but not as often.  The Steve  08:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
While "1950s' culture" may be logical and grammatically correct, it is not used. Google the phrase and look at the results (picking out the relevant minority where this phrase is being used). Current English usage does not add the apostrophe. Please go for "1950s culture", as in 1920s Berlin and 1960s Sicilian Mafia trials. PamD 08:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A rose by any other name... so I'm inclined to trust it to the consensus.  I'm pretty familiar with American car  culture but I'm admittedly lacking in MOS and grammar skills. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 13:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I've raised the question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Decades_and_apostrophes (without reference to this particular article, but using "1960s couture" as an example), in the hopes that we can get something included in WP:DECADE to save any future group of editors spending as much time as this over the question! PamD 14:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
And another thought: aren't decades similar to centuries, where we say "18th century music" and not "18th century's music"? PamD 14:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You may write "18th century music", but you ought to be writing "18th-century music", which eliminates the problem. Malleus Fatuorum 08:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC
You're right - I'd use a hyphen there: I got that wrong. I like hyphens, they so often add clarity. So forget that point, sorry! Although it does show that we don't use anything like an apostrophe in that case: surely the equivalent of "1950s'" would be "18th century's". PamD 08:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest you think about that again, unless you believe that "1960-couture" would be a credible alternative to "1960s' couture". There's no ambiguity with "18th-century", but there is with "1960s": does that refer to the year or to the decade? Malleus Fatuorum 08:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Thought again, still no ambiguity: 1960 and 1960's refer to the year, while 1960s refers to the decade. So "1960 couture" or "1960's couture" are of the year, and "1960s couture" is of the decade. We just disagree, as two native, science-educated, northern, speakers and writers of British English. I'm walking away from this dead horse! 'Bye. PamD 09:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I still think the apostrophe looks a bit daft and over-fussy, even though it now makes grammatical sense. I have never seen a style guide which recommends this usage and I have never seen a Wikipedia article titled this way. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Fowler recommends this usage. Shouldn't we be leading rather than following? What does "1960s couture" mean? The couture of the year 1960 as in "1960's" or of the decade, as in 1960s'". Why so much resistance to being precise? Malleus Fatuorum 08:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
To me, "1960's couture" is unambiguously that of 1960; "1960s couture" is unambiguously that of the 1960s decade.  "1960s' couture" is a mess. PamD 08:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Just spotted that DECADE does have an example: "grew up in 1960s Boston", in the bullet point focussing on two-digit decades. PamD 08:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't give a flying fuck what DECADE says, as I know I'm right. But I also have to recognise that being right carries no weight here, so do the fuck what you like with the article title. Malleus Fatuorum 09:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants to put it to a poll and wait 30 days, that is fine with me.  As I said, the apostrophe isn't as important as the content, so I'm not inclined to concern myself with it.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 21:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This has clearly been an unproductive discussion, and time it was put to bed I think. Even though the apostrophe has been admitted at least by some to be logical and grammatically correct, a position supported by Fowler, it's very clear that logic and grammatical precision have to take second place to common usage. And as common usage is for "1960s" to double up as a collective noun and a possessive then ignorance must prevail. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
As I've said, I will leave that to those wiser than me.  I can rebuild a carb, and tell you the difference in the 55 and 56 Chevy rear lenses (55 is flatter).  That said, I've been a little busy and waiting for the DYK process to go through while I read up more (it looks stalled for some reason), then expect to start working toward a GA, with the help from others.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I look forward to the GA effort, that should be fun. What changed my mind was that the Victoria and Albert Museum has an exhibition of "1960s fashion", and I do have to concede that the apostrophe does look a little bit fussy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Need to update the DYK if you change the title.  Again, I trust others to these things.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to change the title, and I couldn't care less about DYK. Malleus Fatuorum 01:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I did it myself, just to comply with what seems to be a consensus.  You know how I am about consensus.  And I know you don't care about DYK.  Since I am sincere about trying to work this completely through to FA in time, I just thought it would be cool to work it through all the steps along the way.  Silly, perhaps, but it means something to me to have done all the steps on at least one article.  And honestly, this thing is full of cool hooks.  "... that the 1950s' American automobile culture (detail pictured) led to McDonald's double arch sign and suburbia? " will be the hook and it should hit the front page in a few days, so you will have earned a DYK whether you wanted it or not.  DYK is a lot of work, but honestly, I need the experience of doing all the steps to be be a better admin, so I don't mind.  Before long, I will have to vet one or two there myself, to do my share.  I'm ready for the GA process now. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 02:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
DYK is a foregone conclusion, well within the scope of a trained monkey, but what you need to do before taking the next step towards GA is to stabilise the article, and then tidy it up. It's still pretty rough in places, but no point in cleaning up if it's continually changing. Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of not trying to expand it much before GA, then after GA, very carefully expand the different sections with more context.  At this point, I think the main changes are to determine if additional sections are required before GA.  Of course, I'm a rookie here, so open minded to whatever direction is best to achieve the goals.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 18:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The article says that construction was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, yet the image right next to that statement shows a 1955 map purporting to be of the Interstate Highways as of that year. How does that work? Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1955 map was the proposed plan.  The 1956 Act funded the plan.  No interstates existed until after the 1956 funding came in.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 00:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hard to read, but says "Interstate System urban routes designated in September 1955". Designated being the key word. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 00:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The image caption ought to make that clear then, as right now it looks like a map of the Interstate Highways as of 1955, not a proposal. Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There is  File:Interstate Highway plan August 14, 1957.jpg, among others, uploaded to Commons that show various updates to the system, if that helps. Imzadi 1979 →  00:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it. When I first added it, I said it was the original design but someone changed the description. That other map is prettier, but the 55 one is the original plan.  I'm open to either image, they both add value but only one should be there. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done the research, but labor unions were at their peak numbers, as a percentage of total US workers in the 1950s, and while the number may have risen, the percentage has dropped dramatically (I remember reading this, just don't have the sources in front of me).  Wouldn't this be a good section to develop up at the top in the suburbia/interstate/decline area?  It was the pinnacle of unionized America, due largely to the automobile industry.  Would have to dig up the numbers and sources to back them being mainly auto related, but I don't think that would be a problem.  I tend to think that is an important cultural tie. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on this now, still quite rough but likely better to let me get done with the raw facts, then we can sift through, take out the trash and fix my grammar.  Another issue that I had not thought of ahead of time was the women's rights aspects, but now seem quite obvious.  I love learning while I write.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Done for now.  Those sections can probably be expanded a bit but I thought it better if I leave it simple and clearly sourced and allow others to contribute, maybe having something better in mind.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Could use help on the union section, make it more auto related.  I found this [5] and [6] and [7] plus [8] and raw UAW numbers from [9]. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 00:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
We need to give that section a bit more thought I think, as we seem to be in danger of drifting away from culture and towards socio-political economics. I may have made that term up, but I'm sure you get my drift. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, I'm better at digging up sources, understanding the material and such, but sometimes I need blinders to keep from wandering. I think we can shore it up and will this weekend.  You have to remember, I'm used to gnoming, adding singular facts and sources, or a whole paragraph. I'm like a kid the first time out without training wheels :)  I have done several articles, but they were all very focused and drift wasn't a concern. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 02:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I suggested on MF's talk page that some attention to autoworkers should be made. The UAW's role in the Democratic Party and AFL-CIO should be discussed; the role of Walter Reuther (and Victor) in practice and popular culture should be discussed. Autoworkers were ranked highest in alienation in this study:

Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry (1964).
In Sweden, concerns with alienation led to Saab's Trollhattan factory. At the same time, UAW members started to have rather high salaries, very high by the 1980s. The autoindustry and related industries in the steel belt led to northern migration of blacks and Appalachians, which transformed the USA. More generally, race should be discussed, particularly desegregation in high-skilled areas of factory. I already cited Black Detroit and the Rise of the UAW, which focuses on the 30s but has some discussion of the 1950s. Interstate buses were important in the civil rights movement; Bayard Rustin spent time on a chain gang for the first busing protest. I previously noted the role of OR/MS and the whiz kids at GM (Robert McNamara, etc.); the role of organizational man in popular culture (the man in the grey flannel suit) should be mentioned. In the 1960s, there was a romantic reaction against technocracy and administration. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to add Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen ;-) [10].  Montanabw(talk) 00:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

My personal favorite is Asleep at the Wheel [11], but I was raised in Texas, so it's no wonder I'm biased that way.  CC's is here[12]  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 01:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1950s American automobile culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 06:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article. Here's my review:

Please link terms in the image captions that are also in the prose per WP:REPEATLINK
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 14:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I would not typically suggest containing one or two short sentence paragraphs, perhaps merge them into a larger one
 Done in part.  I think some sections would be less readable if I combine too much, since the paragraphs cover very different aspects.  Some of these can be expanded a little later while staying on the topic of that paragraph.  I've fixed over half, but would like your opinion on tolerating the others as is.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 Note It would seem you have now addressed the concern, and there are only two paragraphs that are moderately short, but that appears to be fine. TBrandley (what's up) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe "World War II" should be linked upon first mention probably, per WP:UNDERLINK
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"the city limits" which city in particular?
 Done Qualified general statement.  It didn't apply to any one city, but to all major cities.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"Eleven of America's" as a more encyclopedic term, I would use "United States" there
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"than ever" would suggest removing "ever", doesn't seem to fit correctly
 Done Removed both words.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"Everything related to the auto industry saw tremendous growth during the decade" are you sure you can state every little thing increased significantly?
 Done Toned down the hyperbole.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes you write "percent", while other times you write "%": in any case, I would suggest switching every one to "percent" fully – see the decline of the inner city section especially
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"In 1955 the" add a comma after the year
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
None of the first paragraph for hot rodding is sourced with reliable sources
 Done with primary but reliable sources.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"is perfect for land speed racing" does that represent a neutral point of view
 Done I replaced that with "Holy Grail of American Hot Rodding" which is strong, but used in the source at the end of that sentence.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 16:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"National Football League" add abbreviation to the end with brackets; in this case, "NFL"
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"restaurants in 43" how about "within" instead perhaps?
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Too much use of bold text in drive in theater section, remove the bold preferably with the text of the section itself thereafter
 Done Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"Shopping mall" is overlinking; a common term
 Question:   My thought in linking it was only because that is the topic of the section, for ease of going to the general topic.  A convenience.  Would it be better to use a {{main|shopping mall}} there? Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Any relevant portals you may add to the see also section?
 Question:   I don't really see any portals that fit.  Motorsports, automobile, history, culture, all seem too broad to fit.  This article is about a very specific slice of time, a particular product, and the cultural impact, making it very narrow.  If there was a Portal:1950s, I would put it there, or Portal:automobile history, or similar, but I didn't find those.  Maybe it is a lack of imagination on my part.  I'm open to suggestions.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 17:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 Note I would suggest adding the cars, motorsports, history, and culture to the article, as I personally believe they fit, those topics are generally the main topic of the article itself, so it seems to be appropriate, but if you do not see it flow into the article, that is also fine. TBrandley (what's up) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
TBrandley (what's up) 06:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done? Since neither of us are completely sure, I think the best course of action would be for me to go to each portal, make them aware of the article, and let them decide if that fits within the scope.  We both can see arguments for and against, so deferring to those who have a vested interest is more likely to get the best outcome.  I'm assuming this wouldn't slow down the GA process as it is a side issue, but I agree one that needs to be addressed.  I will see about dropping notes later, after I take the Mrs. out for dinner. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done I've left a talk page message at each of those four portals.  I hate to thrust it upon them and feel they would be a better judge.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, I will start working on these issues one at a time shortly.  Thanks for taking the time.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 19:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for writing and nominating the article! TBrandley (what's up) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like everything except the one question is handled, the shopping mall link.  I'm fine with either solution, I just wanted to get you opinion on the best solution for that, then it looks like everything you have presented will have been fixed.  I'm a GA virgin, so not sure where it goes next.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I would still prefer the term to be unlinked, because, I think, most of us know what a shopping centre is, thus constituting WP:OVERLINK. That is a very minor issue, however. In regards to the good article process, it is very simple, I just pass the article now to good article status or provide further comments here. Happy new year, TBrandley (what's up) 21:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I was just wondering if I should point back to the main or delete it.  I'm willing to do either, just wanted guidance.  I would also note that there is no way that this article would be at this state without User:Malleus Fatuorum.  The fact that it has been painless is purely due to him and I would consider the credit equally belongs to him.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done I've delinked it for now.  Any change to point to main can be discussed later on the talk page.  I think I am completely done now, unless you have found new issues.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, the article seems to meet good article standards, and therefore I will pass the article. Good work to you and Malleus! TBrandley (what's up) 04:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and for taking the time.  Malleus has since retired, but I will pass on the news to him.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 08:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been mulling it over, and I'm leaning towards American automobile culture in the 1950s yet again.  This is likely due in part to my working on a companion article, American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s, in user space currently User:Dennis Brown/Articles/American automotive manufacturing in the 1950s.now moved.  And yes, anyone is welcome to join in, it is quite raw at this point and needs the culture elements stripped of it, originally being a fork of this article.  Wanted to get feedback now that some time has passed to mull it over.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't like your proposed rename, but of course it's not my choice. Malleus Fatuorum 14:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Just as much yours as mine friend.  We're all in this together ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 18:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
My vote is for no then, and here's my rationale. Fashion/culture and manufacturing are two entirely separate things with different timelines, and there's therefore no reason to align the naming of articles about them. For instance, I could very easily imagine an article about American automotive manufacturing in the 1900s, but my worry is that I don't see the synchronicity between the culture and manufacturing as being a general thing. Was there any other decade in which the car so influenced the culture of a generation? I really couldn't imagine an article on American automobile culture in the 1900s for instance. Or even the 1920s, a much more stylish decade. Malleus Fatuorum 18:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You're right.  I shouldn't let my own idiosyncratic idea of matching titles interfere with the greater goal of titling each on its own merits.  Withdrawn.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1950s American automobile culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117084917/http://www.nhra.com/%28S%28vl5h3145bvkajunbvol2ty45%29%29/nhra101/history.aspx to http://www.nhra.com/nhra101/history.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

https://qz.com/1510405/gms-layoffs-can-be-traced-to-its-quest-to-turn-people-into-machines/
has some interesting facts for this article and the companion article.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't have as many views as I'd hope, given the significance of the topic. I'd suggest an area of focus might be adding more incoming links to help people find it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)