Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Transport C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Technology C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WP1.0

Whoever wrote about "man-made" and "non-man-made" vehicles must have been cracking a joke... :) A thing you ride on, cannot be called a "vehicle" just because it moves. --B. Jankuloski 04:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might need to add the appearance of the vehicles, like any other fictional characters from the show and in the video games? Including fictional vehicles from the games too. Is it possible that we can do that? Professional Gamer (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to cover the topic. Currently it's just a list of different sorts of vehicles. It fails to explain in any moderate detail how they are powered, how they move, what they are used for, who owns them, their history; basically IMO the article is a complete failure.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a vehicle loading article may be made, discussing how much a vehicle can carry. In developing countries, vehicles are often overloaded in agricultural environments, causing premature breakdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.221.172 (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the purpose of this unreferenced section is within the context of this article. As it is, it sort of generally deals with one aspect of one physical property of some vehicles. Is the intention to have similar sections on other properties, such as mass, propulsive efficiency, weight, etc? It very much needs references as well. - Ahunt (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually seems to me to be a really critical and important thing that almost all vehicles face. Very nearly every vehicle I can think of has features deliberately intended to greatly reduce friction since the very earliest times, and it has impact on range, acceleration, cost, fuel consumption and lots of other things as well.- Wolfkeeper 03:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - that makes sense, but are you planning to expand the section and reference it? What about discussing other properties of vehicles? - Ahunt (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we've got a start-class article, but I'm adding references as I can find them. Unfortunately I haven't managed to find any really good books on vehicles in general yet, but there's plenty of books on individual types of vehicles.- Wolfkeeper 13:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that as a problem - my library here has the same limitations! I just wondered if you were going to add any more sections like this to describe each of the general properties of vehicles? - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. There's controls, braking systems, more on friction reduction (streamlining, wheels) stability devices, it's all very high level though, and I'd like to ref it as much as possible. I don't want to OR stuff, but it might be possible to use examples from specific types of vehicles, that are easy to reference, as examples of general principles.- Wolfkeeper 23:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - that all makes sense to me. I'll watch as you add that and help out where I can find refs! - Ahunt (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in discussion Vehicle safety template at Talk:Motorcycle. --Dbratland (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you reverted my edits of vehicle, stating "restore lost references". This is an counterproductive revert. The article is in dire need of a clean-up, for which my edit was a small step. It is hard to me to believe you even looked at my edit, which contains removal of inappropriate legal definitions in a single province (which had a different scope than the article), merging of several small and trivial sections, copyediting, removal of out-of-scope content, formatting, and removal of out-of-scope external links. The one reference that was removed, was done so of a good reason, because a legal definition from that province directly contradicts the definition of a vehicle on Wikipedia. Please be more careful with reverts in the future. Just because references are being removed, does not mean the edits are disruptive. Thank you for your understanding, Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It would be helpful if you provided an edit summary so that other editors can more readily evaluate your changes. Yes, I did look at your edit, but I could not see the improvement, and I did see a lot of material go missing with no explanation. I see now that "ce" probably means "copy edit", but it sure doesn't mean "the one reference that was removed, was done so of a good reason, because a legal definition from that province directly contradicts the definition of a vehicle on Wikipedia." Furthermore, if a valid reference contradicts the definition in Wikipedia, that often means that Wikipedia is probably incorrect or incomplete. I've copied our discussion to the article talk page so that other editors can know what we are up to. -AndrewDressel (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Andrew's side - the External references that have been removed:

   * Green Vehicle Guide
   * Strangest Vehicles In The World
   * not Council Directive 70/156/EEC, about Type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers.
   * not Council Directive 80/1267/EEC: Amendment of Directive 70/156/EEC
   * not Council Directive 80/1268/EEC Fuel consumption of motor vehicles.
   * EU Motor Vehicle Type Approval.
   * List of all motor vehicles produced in US, Mexico, & Canada

are important to the article (though I fancy they may need improving). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the "types of vehicles" section to the article "outline of vehicles"? There is already a list there an it covers all the major types of vehicles to the best of my knowledge Duga3 (talk) 00:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense to do, but the list from this article really needs to be merged into that list, rather than just removed from this article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... the land speed record for human powered vehicles is 133 km (83 mi) (as of 2009)" There is some error here. Either the units are wrong or it is a distance record (which is unlikely as I personally know people who have traveled further under their own power) 12.230.177.190 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks for noting that, ref found and fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence is jarring, logically: "Energy can be extracted from the surrounding environment, as in the case of a sailboat, a solar-powered car, or an electric streetcar that uses overhead lines." A sailboat gets wind energy from the surrounding environment. A solar-powered car gets solar energy from sunlight, which is part of the surrounding environment. But overhead electric lines aren't part of "the surrounding environment" in any ordinary usage of the words. They are part of a manmade system that is deliberately designed to provide power to the streetcar. The simplest solution is to eliminate streetcars from this list of examples. Holy (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]