Talk:Electric car

Former featured article candidateElectric car is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 27, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

ICE vs. internal combustion engine

Since "ICE" now has very negative connotations because of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, then I propose a reduction in the use of this acronym in this and other articles about internal combustion engines and all vehicles that use them. The use of "ICE" with regard to engines and cars of this type is also an overuse of acronyms. -Mardus /talk 06:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - An acronym in a single country in an unrelated field is not a reason to change how the world talks about cars.  Stepho  talk  12:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose as Stepho said. I'd have mentioned a particular form of frozen water (not ICE). Perhaps we should add a trigger warning? Greglocock (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images only show electric cars plugged in - this is a problem

This edit reversed the addition of an image of a BYD Atto 3 because the car wasn't plugged in, arguing that only pictures of cars charging belonged on the page because readers couldn't tell they were electric without that. I believe this is a mistake. Mammal doesn't only show animals suckling their young, Diesel Locomotive doesn't only feature diesel locomotives being refuelled. Newystats (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Problem? Not at all.
But first of all, it's worthwhile to read the previous discussions about the lead image:
The lead image is not just pretty decoration but should represent the article as a whole. If you showed somebody just your Atto image and then said what article do you think that represents, then most people will probably say the car article. From just the image, most people will not even think that it is an electric car.
Instead, we need an image that most people will automatically think "oh yes, that's an electric car". Which is why we have images of cars charging. Only an electric car needs charging, so an image of a charging car is automatically associated with electric cars (or perhaps a PHEV).
In your examples, a typical diesel train (streamlined, small wheels) looks quite different to a typical steam train (big wheels, smoke stack) or a typical electric train (small wheels, pantograph on top). There are exceptions but images that avoid them are easy to find.
Cars are trickier because many electric cars do look just like petrol cars. So we look for something that differentiates them. Charging is one way. An image of a battery or electric motor also works. I'm open to other ideas. But an image of a car that the average reader is likely to mistake for a petrol car is not a good solution.
FYI, I'm seriously thinking of buying something in the Atto range, so I'm certainly not biased against the Atto range.  Stepho  talk  04:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia 2024 ICE car ban reference

Duncnbiscuit (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Electric vehicle and Electric car

It looks like content was moved from Electric vehicle to Electric car. And a section in Electric vehicle now depends on Electric car because it's an excerpt. So when Electric car was reverted, it broke the Electric vehicle article. User:Lfstevens, User:Stepho-wrs, I think this needs to be fixed. Periwinklewrinkles (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It wasn't obvious from the edit summary that it was content moved from another article (we normally put a link to the other article in the edit summary, complete with double square brackets) and certainly not obvious that Electric vehicle transcluded the new topics from here. I've reverted Electric vehicle so that at least it isn't broken. Anyway, I'm open to discussion about which article the information belongs in. Personally, I don;t think it is worthwhile to have sub sections in either about non-electric vehicles (hybrids, PHEV). Likewise, I don't feel it worthwhile to have sections on every possible type of automobile (pickups, sedans, etc) because the mechanical parts are mostly the same, obviously with bigger ratings for bigger vehicles.  Stepho  talk  02:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your criticisms apply to Electric vehicle. All I did was move car-related stuff there (and clean it up). It made no sense for the EV article to be more detailed about cars than EC. Both of these articles need complete edit passes. They are pastiches. Guessing that many editors found one or the other and just stuck their current interest in the one they found. Also, please don't revert good-faith edits unless they are plainly wrong. This is the place to hash out disagreements, as I hope we are now doing.
WP:BRD - you boldly edited, I reverted and now we discuss - that's normal. And the power of history and revert allows your bold edit (because it can be reverted easily) and also allows my revert (because it can also be reverted easily).
My revert was because it looked like a lot of extra fluff that didn't help the article. And you have said the same thing. What I didn't realise was that you were shifting it out of Electric vehicle (I usually put an actual link to the source article when I shift from one to another) . And I agree that it belongs there even less than it belongs here.
Since we both agree that it is fluff, should we keep it (ie, restore your edits in both articles)? Or should we just delete it from both articles? There is little that is worth keeping, so my inclination is to delete it from both. Possibly somebody might want to keep parts of it. Thoughts?  Stepho  talk  10:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your effort to find common ground. I plan to work over these articles more fully, and would appreciate the chance to do so without edit warring. Assuming that is OK, I will revert your reverts and continue. I am happy to address any issues via Talk.
No problem. Undo my reverts and we'll see what can be done to improve things.  Stepho  talk  05:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial road sign?

@Yopic Can you explain more about your photo please? Is the “no electric cars” roadsign homemade and do you have any idea why electric cars would be prohibited there but not gasoline cars? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.