Talk:Bumper (car)

message: This article seems to be written from a non-neutral viewpoint. The tone sounds like a criticism of modern bumpers rather than a discussionDreamlogic (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. I have put in several hours' work upgrading the article with more detailed information, more references, and a more neutral and balanced tone. A great deal more work is needed, for presently the article really only covers the U.S. situation in detail, Canada as an overview, the international ECE regulations only tangentially, and the Japanese regulations not at all. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article quality

message: Vegavairbob, edit wars are not allowed here. On June 26, you added an image to this article. It is a clear and sharp image, but it is not especially illustrative of the subject matter. On July 6, I provided a composite image, also clear and sharp, but considerably more illustrative of the subject matter. This morning, you reverted twice, each time with a belligerent, edit-warring summary. This is not okeh. Please try to keep in mind that the object isn't for any particular editor to have as many of his own images of his own personal car in as many articles as possible. The object is optimally-illustrative images of highest quality, no matter who produced them. It is neither helpful nor productive for you to revert simply because you want your image of your car in the article. On the left here in this section is the image you want to use. On the right is the one I prefer. Let's get a discussion going based on the merits of the images: How do you reckon your image better illustrates the subject matter of the relevant section of the article? —Scheinwerfermann T·C14:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree with Scheinwerfermann, the comparison images are excellent to say the least. Scheinwerfermann has produced high-quality images of virtually identical cars, and in that sense his comparison is very comprehensible. At the same time, Vegavairbob's image better depicts the entire front-end of the car; this is less important in this article. If a compromise is the only answer, lets keep both for now. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point of including the Vega image when the other one is so much clearer and more informative. And your compromise of keeping them both makes the overall layout of the article messy and hard to read. I'd favor just having the composite image, on the left so that it doesn't conflict with the other image above it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the comparison images best illustrate the design changes to bumpers. The image of the Vega is not needed, in my opinion. — 03:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Vegavairbob, edit warring and image placement against consensus is not allowed whether you do it under your own name or with a sock puppet. Stop it now. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image selection 

message: Someone requested a 3rd opinion at WP:3; therefore I am offering one. It seems to me that the North America specific banner is probably appropriate since the only rules being discussed are those of the U.S. and Canada. I admit that it may not be easy to find info on the rules and regulations of other countries, but it should not be impossible and it should be done to make the article complete. With a quick search I did find this site: , which has a brief comparison of European collision safety requirements with the bumper damage requirements of the U.S. and Canada. Now as to some of the other issues that came up in this thread. There are two good reasons for removing a banner. One is that the underlying issue has been addressed, and the other is that the banner wasn't appropriate in the first place. However, before removing a banner  (especially for the 2nd reason) it is probably a good idea to suggest removing the banner on the talk page and request comments. This helps avoid needless conflict. Having said that I think that some of the conflict in this case could have been avoided if  —Scheinwerfermann had simply explained the reasoning for adding the banner in the first place rather than talking about vandalism and possible blocks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Government web sites should be good sources. Peter Horn User talk 02:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Opinion

message: fascia image belongs in fascia section . a bumper is needed for lead image(Vegavairbob (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added referenced information and images of "real" bumpers to the lead section. CZmarlin (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  bumper versus bumper fascia 

message: What about bumpers on trucks and other vehicles? Peter Horn User talk 01:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, coverage of truck and other vehicle bumpers belongs here. Go ahead and be bold and add what you can. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is named as Bumper (automobile)  -->Typ932 T·C 06:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes…and? I have a hard time imagining there's insufficient overlap between car and truck and bus and van bumpers to exclude the non-car ones from this article. Likewise, I have a hard time imagining there's enough difference between car and truck and bus and van bumpers to warrant separate articles. You do raise a good point; a more appropriate title for this article might be Bumper (automotive) or Bumper (vehicle). —Scheinwerfermann T·C18:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "other vehicles?" it was just a reminder that it was for automobiles not for all other vehicles -->Typ932 T·C 04:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

text: So let's rename (move) the article to Bumper (automotive) or Bumper (vehicle). Peter Horn User talk 02:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bumper (vehicle) is a redirect page for now. Peter Horn User talk 02:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bumpers on other vehicles. 

message: When did motor vehicle bumpers, in the way they became known, come into use? Did they become a legal requirement in USA in the late 1920s? I think they became common in Europe rather later. US bumpers were always sturdier enabling "parking by ear"?
When did bumpers visually disappear? In the 1970s? Eddaido (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bumper History 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bumper (car). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Earlier I removed a [when] tag from "Following the 1967 death of actress Jayne Mansfield in an auto/truck accident, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommended..." in §Truck vs. car, because to me this read as asking the rather silly question of "when was 1967?". However, it was correctly pointed out that the NHTSA didn't exist in 1967, so the recommendation had to appear at some, presently unspecified, point after 1967. This makes a [when] tag perfectly reasonable. However, may I propose moving the [when] to after "Following" rather than after "1967"?
* Following the 1967 death → "when was 1967?"
* Following the 1967 death → "when did the thing that happened after 1967 happen?"
oatco (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Following the 1967 death of actress Jayne Mansfield..."