This is an archive of past discussions about Electric car. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Everyone talks about how electric cars are great for the environment, but in reality they are probably worse. They create more pollution in manufacturing, due to the metals needed for the battery, the electricity they run on comes from, for the most part, coal, natural gas and nuclear power (wind power is inefficient, hydroelectric dams are expensive, solar power is both), and when being scrapped, the batteries must be disposed of, and that creates a lot of pollution. Not that CO2 output matters, because it is necessary for life on earth and has played a minor cause in global warming (most of it is natural, and climate predictions are unreliable). I will get sources soon.2601:245:C101:6BCC:7519:86DA:773F:598B (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
As LLB said, you need references to support your claim. Many of your points are true. However, do you also include emissions during the refining of the petrol, the emissions of the tanker that shipped the fuel to your country, the emissions of truck that distributed it to your local petrol station, the emissions of the military used to guarantee that supply of petrol from a war-torn part of the world? Also, electricity generation can be dirty (coal powered) or clean (hydro) depending on where you live (Norway is almost all hydro and very, very clean). Even when using dirty generation, at least they have the option to use a massive scrubber that will be far more efficient than what could be carried on-board a car - again, depending on where you live. It's a complex equation. Stepho talk22:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thought you might find the following interesting. Not sure if it belongs in the article. BMW in the accompanying video says it is spending $7 billion on electrification R&D and it is its biggest investment ever. 3 minutes into the video.
Sorry if this is a bit informal, I am fairly new to Wikipedia still, we need to revamp this page and a lot to contain information of what most people will experience with an electric car, specifically most people will be seeing the Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf, and soon likely the I-Pace, we need to make sure we don't show too many luxury cars or city cars, just as we don't show racecars and citycars all over the pages for I.C.E cars. They obviously should still be included, just not strewn all over the place. On top of that the pages for pricing appears to be outdated, among other outdates strings of line that end up in an almost argument with itself of things like "This is a disadvantage of EV technology, BUT it's better now/SOME ones are...." might just be a nitpick tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordLimaBean (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm trying to work on shortening it now, I know a bit more about Wikipedia now, main priority should be fixing the battery section, but I don't even know where to start, want to help? LordLimaBean (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Tesla with hoseNissan Leaf just sitting there.Jaguar just sitting thereSmall Euro car with coiled cable
Re: this edit to restore images of cars that look more electric-y because of 1) goofy design, and 2) charging cable that is thin and coiled rather than a thick black tube that could be mistaken for a fuel hose. It's true that for the last 80-some years, electric cars have always looked goofy, for no particular reason. But that changed in the mid-90s, and so for the last 20 to 25 years, electric cars have looked pretty much like any other car. A lead image of a car that is more or less indiscinguisable from combustion engine cars is a fairly accurate representation of reality.
Sigh, we're about to go through yet another painful round of "I want my favourite electric car as the lead image". Just like I have been saying for years, the lead image must not just be an image of an electric car - it must be an image of an ELECTRIC car. The image must have has 2 main features that must be obvious to any reader with at least functioning 2 brain cells.
It must be a car. This is easy and every image proposed over the last 10 years has had this.
It must be obviously electric. Note that I underlined 'obviously' and did not underline 'electric'. Almost every image proposed has failed this. The image of the Tesla looks to the casual reader like an ordinary car with a hose connected to a petrol pump. The image of the Leaf looks like almost any Japanese hatch in a car park. In short these images are not representative of the article.
In the past, we have had images that had small European with coiled charging cables attached. No petrol pump hose is coiled and many different types of electric cables are coiled, so this makes it very obvious that this is an electric car. Unfortunately, many American editors treat small European cars as "goofy". But American electric cars don't have coiled cables or anything else that visually puts them apart from petrol powered cars. So, while small and/or goofy wasn't a goal, it seems to be an unfortunate side effect. If you can propose other images that are obviously electric, then we would be happy to consider it. Stepho talk00:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I formally disagree with that statement, it doesn't need to be a caricature of a technology or a person, it just needs to be accurate, just as we don't need to get a picture of a modern diesel locomotive's internals working to show it is not a steam engine, at least not as the primary pictures. LordLimaBean (talk) 01:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it does not need to be obviously electric. Do diesel cars have to look obviously diesel? On Going commando people constantly want to add a nude upskirt exhibitionist image, to illustrate a person wearing no underwear. The *point* of going commando is that you can't tell whether a person is or isn't wearing underwear. If you go out of your way to show the world, you're an exhibitionist, and if you go out of your way to find out, you're a voyeur. Three different categories; the going commando category means you can't tell. A lead image should be generally representative of the topic. If the typical electric car looks like a weird oddball, then we can have an "obviously" electric car lead, but the typical electric car since the 1990s hasn't been such a thing. The typical electric car today looks like most other cars.
I favor the Leaf if they really are the most common electric, even though they are hideously ugly, and a Tesla because our sources give them loads of coverage, and they are verifiably very influential, even if few of them are on the road. And I think Tesla is a lot of hype and media whoring, and they don't keep their promises. Neither the Leaf or the Tesla is my favorite. I find Tesla interesting, but not likable. A car I like would be a Mini, but I don't favor that for the lead.
If some other cars qualify as very common or highly covered by reliable sources, I'd favor those instead. Both cars shoulnd't be the same color; that looks odd. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Charging cars in San Francisco
For most steam and diesel loco's they are extremely easy to tell apart, so I don't see how that argument applies here. Whereas many electric cars and petrol cars do look similar (even if Dennis is driving them commando - note to self, don't open any email images coming from Dennis :)
The lead image must set the tone for the rest of the article. Placing a picture of what looks like any other car is just filling space, looking pretty or showing your favourite car - none of which are good arguments for using the reader's screen space. If the lead image is not just wasting space then it must point out something unique to this article. And the user should not have to spend huge amounts of thought, decipherment and analysis to figure out the meaning of the image. Preferably it should be something that he can glance at and immediately think of electric cars, even if the particular model is not one he is familiar with. A car driving on the street or just sitting there tells the reader nothing. A car with a thick electric cable that looks remarked similar to a petrol pump hose tells the reader nothing and might even confuse them. But a car with a bright coloured coiled cable sums up the entire article. What more could a lead image want? Stepho talk09:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
"A car driving on the street or just sitting there tells the reader nothing"? It does tell you something: it tells you typical electric cars today look like ordinary cars. Conversely, if you pick a relatively obscure car simply because it has more of that goofy "electric car look", it misleads the reader into thinking electric cars don't look like ordinary cars. It's like those terrible stock images lazy news blogs put at the top of articles about computer hacking, of a guy in a dark room at a keyboard wearing a hood and dark glasses. You can tell he's a hacker because that's what hacker's wear when they're typing, and the room has to be extra dark, or the hacking won't work good. It's goofy. A stock photo of a "cell phone user" in 1988 would be some kind of rich tycoon who has all the exotic toys, like Gordon Gekko A 2018 photo would be an example of literally anybody, from any walk of life. That's the point. Cell phones users are ordinary. The fact that something doesn't look extraordinary is information. Making it look extraordinary is misinformation. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Dennis - current electric cars mostly look like typical petrol or diesel cars. The main reason for that is that they are generally based on typical petrol or diesel cars, but with the combustion engine and ancillaries replaced with electric motors and batteries. On the other hand, the next generation of electric cars (like the imminent Jaguar I-Pace, for example) will have been designed from the ground up as electric cars. As they will be packaged around motors and batteries rather than around I.C. engines, they may have shorter and lower bonnets (hoods) and longer wheelbases and more interior space for their given footprints. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Been watching this discussion for a few days now, wondering why on earth anyone would expect electric cars to look dramatically different from cars that run on other fuels. Electric cars are now effectively mainstream, so looking like any other car on the road is the point. They ARE NOT weird, oddball vehicles. Looking for an image of something out of left field to represent something that isn't is just wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Icon
VW Golf Electric
Tesla Roadster charging outdoors
Tesla Roadster charging indoors
BMW i3
Prius PHEV
Leaf charging
Tesla charging cable
Leaf charging
Prius PHEV
Tesla Roadster charging
From MOS:LEADIMAGE, "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover — to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." (my underlining) The lead is special - it lets the reader know what is unique about this topic. What is the point of a reader seeing a picture of just another car as the first image of the article? It's a perfectly valid point that they are mainstream and look just like other cars but there are plenty of example images scattered through the article. It is certainly not the main point of the article. The main point of the article is that they are electric and therefore the lead image must reflect this.
Referring to small electric cars as "goofy", weird, oddball or out of left field is showing a cultural bias. In Europe, these are perfectly normal small cars that don't look out of place at all - they're just not common in the US (Dennis) or Australia (HiLo48).
However, we can try to pick an image that is agreeable across the world. I've shown a few more above that emphasis the electric nature of cars. Most of these new images are of cars that can be seen on roads in Europe, N.America, Australia and many other countries. Most of these new images show this electric nature through the use of a charging cable that doesn't look like a petrol pump hose. I have a preference for the cars charging in San Francisco showing Prius PHEV's but the others also get the point across. Would anybody like to comment on these images? Stepho talk12:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree firmly, that is simply not true, the lead image is very obviously an electric car, nothing about it says it is an I.C.E, it is obviously a wire already, just because people have dark skin doesn't mean you have to put a stereotypical black-face type person on a wikipedia page for africans, I know that is really extreme of an example, but it is already settled, this picture of the model S will stay here until further notice, unless there are more future objections with a reasonable claim to why it should be changed, such as; there being a better picture of a model 3, the technology changing, or some other unforseen change, as of now, I think we all agree, that this is how it will stay, unless someone has a reasonable claim as to why it should change, thank you for spending the time to write that message. LordLimaBean (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Er, no. I disagree firmly with your position and the discussion is still very much under way. Indeed, according to WP:BRD, when a change has been made that is controversial then the article should be returned to its original state (ie before your change to the Tesla) until the conversation has run its course. I am well within my rights to revert the image immediately and it is only my politeness that stops me from doing so.
Out of interest I went to the Africa article. The people are mainly mentioned in the Africa#Demographics section and it has only 3 images - all of dark-skinned people. It links to the Demographics of Africa article (also accessible via Africans to match your comment above), which has 4 images of black people and 1 image of white people. I don't think Wikipedia agrees with your point about how to choose an image for African people.
The image of the Tesla is only obviously electric if you already know what a Tesla is - otherwise it looks like an ordinary (albeit very nice) sedan. Which is the point Dennis made. An image that is "obviously" electric to one person but is obviously just like any other non-electric car is not doing its job for either point. Also, to someone not familiar with electric cars in general or the Tesla specifically, that black thing coming out of the car looks remarkably similar to a hose from a petrol pump. It has the same colour, the same thickness and droops about the same. A reader unfamiliar with electric car charging cables could be lead to wondering why an electric car article has an image of a car being filled with petrol. You have assumed that the reader is already familiar with the Tesla, is already familiar with electric cars and only likes electric cars if they are of the larger size preferred by Americans. In which case, why on Earth is the reader even looking at this article if they know it all?
Now, can anybody comment on any of the other images I have shown above? The black Tesla Roadster charging could be a good candidate. It is a car agreeable to Americans. It has a charging cable to emphasis that it is electric (draped across the ground in a way unlike that of petrol hoses). It is nicely posed. Would this be suitable? Stepho talk08:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Only if you change the images in the articles for every petrol driven car to pictures cars parked beside a pump with the nozzle in the tank. This really is a silly objective of yours. Electric cars are just cars. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The point of the lead image of any article is to show what is special about that topic. Most cars are petrol powered, therefore being petrol powered is not special to most car articles, therefore most car articles do not need a petrol pump in the image. And contrary to what you think I am suggesting, I do not expect Tesla, Leaf, etc articles to require a charging cable in the lead image. The point of those articles is the car, so an ordinary image of the car is perfectly fine. Whereas electric cars are still in the minority and being electric is the exact point of this article. This article has two points to convey to the reader 1. cars and 2. electric. The first point is covered well by all lead images considered but you 3 have steadfastly ignored any image that gives the un-informed reader a clue about it being electric. Instead, you suggest the electric car article should have a lead image that hides anything suggesting that it is electric. And you claim that my idea is silly? Stepho talk21:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Twice I have asked for comments on specific images (cars charging San Francisco and the black Tesla charging) and Springee has asked about the icon. Does anybody have any reason why these would not be suitable as a lead image?
They would be suitable, but I still see no need to have cables hanging from the car to somehow "prove" it's electric. The title of the article does that. You are discussing a problem that doesn't exist, AND ignoring an awful lot of perfectly good images. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
How about the electric car icon shown above? The other ev images could be used throughout the article. The icon is both obvious and neutral. Springee (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
First, nobody should be reverting anybody here. None of these images are offensive, or egregiously misleading or inaccurate. Pretty much all of them are adequate enough. We can work this out without edit warring, and if it takes a month, so what?
Second, what is special about electric cars in the 21st century is that they are normal cars. They have more or less the same usability, performance, range, and price of conventional cars. If a reader barely glances at this article and only gleans one fact from it, that fact should be that electric cars have entered the mainstream. A perfect visual metaphor to convey that is a picture of one of the most commonplace electric cars around, what WP:LEADIMAGE calls "natural and appropriate representations of the topic". The guideline says it is "common" for lead images to provide visual confirmation that a reader has arrived on the right page, but it does not say the lead image must serve this purpose. Can anyone cite evidence for confusion about whether or not the found the right page as being an overriding concern? What is the use case for this? Someone trying to defuse a ticking time bomb who can't afford a split second to read the article title? It can't be for someone who doesn't read English; articles are explicitly not written to accommodate readers who don't have basic fluency in English. The MOS does explicitly encourage accommodating visually impaired readers, but does not say we have to try to communicate purely through pictures and icons. Wikipedia is fundamentally about text, not images.
I also can't imagine the use case of a person who is fluent in written English, and who is so familiar with automobiles that they would recognize a thick black hose as a fuel pump hose, yet at the same time this person doesn't have the slightest clue that a car that looks like a Tesla Model S or a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt. What country does this reader live in? What planet? How exactly are they reading Wikipedia without any access to the Internet, which will have already made them familiar with the basic fact of what typical cars look like, and giving them some general concept of the electric cars. Wikipedia is not written for The Man Who Fell to Earth.
The dominant electric car silhouette is represented by the top-selling EVs, the closely-related Nissan Leaf and Renault Zoe, and the similarly-styled BAIC e-series, the #1 EV in the world's largest EV market, China. China's #2 EV, the Chery EQ, could easily be mistaken for one of these as well. I could be easily persuaded to support an image of some other car if you were to argue that this other car is the most popular, top selling, or most commonplace car on Earth. I support whatever is the electric car that is most prevalent.
I think two lead images would look fine here, and I think it's not a bad idea for the second image to be the media darling Tesla. Tesla is not representative of the EV market as a whole, and not representative of the global car market. Even in Europe or the US, Tesla is convinced to an upper-class niche. But our sources pay a lot of attention to Tesla, partially because of publicity stunts like launching a car into space, and partially because Tesla has had a disproportionate influence on making electric cars mainstream. Since the move of EVs into the mainstream is of such great importance here, then it follows that we could use one in the lead, probably as the second image after a typical Leaf/Zoe/BAIC e-series type car. But not both in burgundy; that looks weird.
Regarding the several suggestions to use an image that puts the charging station front and center, upstaging and cropping out the car, I say that this article is about the topic of electric cars. We have an article charging station, that is about charging stations -- it's lead even has one of the images suggested here. This article is about electric cars, and the lead should be an image of a car. It's not harmful if a charging cable or station is in the image too, but it must show a car, and the whole car. Not a cropped piece of a car.
What about an icon? No. What is the use case for an icon? Someone who can't read English? Sorry, no. Not necessary. It conveys far too little information. We're not trying to pick the most dumbed-down way of saving the reader the effort of reading the words "electric car".
The examples of Africa and Demographics of Africa are simply unhelpful because they are not WP:GAs or WP:FAs. If you are going to argue by example, then you have to pick a Featured Article or Good Article, at least, to ensure that we are talking about an artilce with strong consensus favoring it. Africa has been semi-protected since 2010 for content disputes!
Most FAs are about very specific tings, because it is so hard for there to be any consensus on a broad topic or abstract concept. Of the few examples, we have Bacteria, which leads with perhaps the most commonplace, familiar example, E. coli. Cell nucleus leads with HeLa, "the oldest and most commonly used human cell line". Bird punts by using 18 different images for the lead. Wimps. We could go the Wikipedia:Imagemap route, but to me it's high-maintenance. We should be able to change the lead image of an article a couple times a year without it being a big production. But it might solve the dispute.
Does File:17-11-14-Fahrzeug-Glasgow RR79924.jpg meet everyone's requirements? It's one of the most common, typical electric cars, and it shows the entire car in a realistic setting. It is clearly connected to an electrical cable, and few if any modern petrol cars have a fuel inlet in the front, so it is unmistakably electric. The composition and overall quality are maybe a bit on the dull side (it doesn't have to be a Featured Image), but other than that the image quality is good -- sharp, well lit, no distortion. If not, some other picture of a Leaf or Zoe at a charging station, showing the entire car, ought to make everyone happy. No? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
So how about these for lead images -- or some other Tesla, or even some other image that isn't a car but represents the 21st century EV industry:
The Nissan Leaf, one of the world's top electric car models, at a charging stationThe 2006 announcement of a luxury sports car by Silicon Valley startup Tesla led a resurgent electric car industry[1]
The Tesla Roadster only sold well under 3k, compared to the Nissan Leaf (300k sold), Tesla Model S (200k sold), Model 3 (~500k preordered, in early production, at ~2500 a week, rising fast)LordLimaBean (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
But what does that have to do with the point? Which I explained in my comments above twice, or three times, and which is in the caption?--Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The Tesla Roadster while a cool car, I feel was not a good fit for the top of the page, as a low amount of units are in circulation, perhaps we could do one of these things so everyone is happy (the large list of images at the beggining), and order them in the units of sales of each type? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BirdLordLimaBean (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The Leaf was picked due to its high numbers sold, the fact that Leafs are common EVs all over the world. The second car is there for a completely different reason. As I was trying to point out, the reason for the second car being there is its role in the recent era in EVs. The DOE history site I linked to makes it simple: in the 90s interest in electric cars bottomed out, the EV1 fizzled for reasons, and then things limped along while technology improved and global warming grew in importance. And then... the mindset changed. The DOE history site puts it like this: after the 200-mile Tesla sports car is announced "Other automakers take note, accelerating work on their own electric vehicle." Next thing you know, Leaf, and Zoe, and so on. Ever since 2006, Tesla has had a disproportionate influence, far out of scale with how many cars it actually makes. And the Roadser is not a cool car, it's a wet dream for jackoffs with too much money. I don't want any Teslas here because they're "cool". It's because you can't deny that Tesla is influential.
Having the Leaf followed by a picture of the #2 top selling EV would be just dull, and missing an opportunity to highlight an important fact about electric cars today. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
LLB, the collage lead image in the bird article is an interesting idea. In that article it gives the reader the important impression that birds come in many different varieties. However, to me, it also gives the impression that the editors couldn't get it together long enough to agree on anything. For our article, we already have lots of images showing variety, with both US and European cars, in both large and small sizes. Which gives the collage nothing much extra to say and forces the reader to squint at tiny images.
Dennis, I have no preference for a particular brand or model. I'm happy with a Tesla, Leaf or one of the small cars. It's the plainness of a car just sitting there that bothers me when we can give the reader so much more. To me, the Roadster with the "2006 announcement" caption would be a great car to own if I had the money but doesn't actual say much to the reader. Also, the caption is very true of the Western market but ignores the Chinese market where BYD Auto have been making wonderful electric vehicles for a while (I had a ride in an electric BYD taxi in Guangdong in December and was quite impressed). Back in about 2005 I sat in on some informal talks between China and Australia about nuclear vs coal electricity generation and I know that China takes its pollution problem very seriously. It's why 2 stroke bikes and walking tractors common in China in the 1990's have disappeared and electric bikes and electric taxis are everywhere. But I digress.
LLB has given his preference for the Leaf and both you and I like the Leaf charging image. So, perhaps we should agree to use that as the lead image. I have no objection if a few other images chosen by you two are put under it to show some variety or other features. Stepho talk11:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought you were joking when you wrote that File:Nissan Leaf on Cross Island Parkway cropped.jpg is "just sitting there." It's a good quality dynamic image, and a good example of how to use motion blur to show an object in motion. Showing a car being driven in traffic this way shows it in its natural habitat doing the thing it exists to do. It has a lot of merit, and it's definitely not "just sitting there". But yes, lets go with File:17-11-14-Fahrzeug-Glasgow RR79924.jpg, and for now the 2006 Tesla after that. If someone wants to come along and replace it with a BYD or some other secondary aspect of EVs, by all means, let them. We aren't making the final decisions on any images. If something better comes along next week or next year, all the better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, my mistake. It looked like a Leaf in a car park with another vehicle travelling past on an adjacent road. Even good full-size images can be deceptive at Thumbnail scale. Stepho talk04:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we could find one with a home charger? I am asking around for people who have a good picture of their car that has everything for sure legal to use, a focus on the car, while charging using a home charger, as that would be ideal. As for the secondary image, I like the idea of the roadster having a huge role in the page, but I feel like it should be moved to the history section instead, I feel for the second image from the top it should be either the Tesla Model S, or the Model 3, as the model s was the second best selling one, and, once the deliveries are done, the model 3 will likely be one of the highest sold electric vehicles. [2]LordLimaBean (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
If you start choosing a Tesla based on sales numbers, then you run straight into a buzz saw of other cars that outsold any Tesla. The best argument for why a Tesla belongs near the top of the article isn't sales volume, it's influence, and that Tesla's initial buzz is what kicked off the current EV era. That places the turning point at 2006, and the first Roadster prototypes.
Let's just agree with the Leaf and the Roadster for now, and later if someone has something better we can cross that bridge when we come to it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the first image could be this, and the second image the roadster? LordLimaBean (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Best selling electric cars, Nissan Leaf (left), and Tesla Model S (right), charging at a street in Oslo.
It's a bit dark and depressing. I prefer the red Leaf changing because it shows everything else I think is important and is atheistically better. I'd be even happier with the black Roadster charging but I will go along with either of the 2 images you 2 are looking at. Perhaps the red Leaf followed by the black Roadster. Stepho talk10:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I am delighted by the photo of the Tesla at the Supercharger aka “Tesla with hose” and quite pleased to see it at the top of this article. But then, I took the picture! And to be honest, I don’t see one I like more. I’ve discussed this here before, don’t care to further, except to say the red Nissan Leaf charging is my second choice. With a grin, I !vote we leave the current photo up top. Oh, and thanks to whoever put it up there. Jusdafax (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, that makes you a touch biased :) As I've detailed above, as much I like Tesla cars, that particular image is not suitable as the lead image. The Leaf charging image is much, much better. However, I'm am perfectly happy to have your Tesla image as the second image. Stepho talk23:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it fits all suitable criteria in my book, apart from you disliking it, the only potential change would be to flip the nissan leaf and the model s, but we probably need a better picture of the nissan leaf, and a more up to date (2018) version, once that is in place, once tesla sells enough of the model 3 for it to reach the best selling, we will then replace the lead image with the model 3, and the secondary image with the best selling non tesla electric car of the time. LordLimaBean (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm against the red Tesla image but not because I don't like it. As an image it's fine. On the Tesla Model S article or the Tesla, Inc. article it would be fine. But on this 'Electric car' article you want a picture that looks like it is being filled up with petrol. That's misleading to the reader. The red Leaf charging image was acceptable to all of us and is a far better fit to the article. Stepho talk05:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
After more thinking the Red leaf charging is not an acceptable image, as it does not focus on the car, and instead focuses on the car's charger, which will almost never be used like that. The focus should instead be on the car itself, or as the car's charging a secondary thing, on top of that, frankly, we need to find someone to get a new image to our choices, as, we should probably find a car that meets these criteria 1. In the top 3 most sold electric cars. 2. The car itself as the primary part of the image 3. If it's charging it should use a home charger. Currently the image fulfills two of the criteria that I feel like should be used, while the image of the Leaf, while good, fulfills only one. The image of the second nissan leaf on the page already fulfills all of them. Once the model 3 sells at least 200k of their 400k they are early in producing, we should try to find an image of one of those, unless, there is a car that sells more until then, given that it will likely surpass all of them in sales. Other than that we probably need to make sure we do the typical things, such as make sure the contrast makes the cars easily visible (the black cars I suggested earlier will not work well because of that), and, make sure it's an accurate representation of the page electric car, which, any image of something that is a popular electric car I feel like would fit, and I do not feel like it needs to be partaking in an activity that only an electric car can do, just as you don't have to show gas being poured in internal combustion engine cars on the top image because that is a difference between other methods. LordLimaBean (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Focuses on the charger? When the car is about 3/4 of the image and the charger is less than 1/4.
Practically everybody knows what a car is. There is no need to emphasise that it is a car to the exclusion of all else. Petrol powered cars have been the dominant type of car for about a century, so most readers are already familiar with the fact of a combustion engine. But electric cars are still in the minority and are therefore different to what the average reader comes across. Plus, the article title has 2 words. You want to emphasise the word that is common and well known to most readers but want to sideline the word that actually makes this type different from the majority of cars on the road. Presenting an image of 4 wheels and some tin gives very little to the reader - they already known what a car is. Adding what looks like a petrol hose then confuses the reader who then has to figure out why the image seems to represent the exact opposite of the article title. And your idea that we must not show what is special about this topic is, frankly, baffling to me. I can't think of any other article that goes out of its way to not show the main point of the article.
I can see why a home charger is preferable to a street charger but why must a street charger be ruled out as unsuitable if we can't find an acceptable home charger image? Stepho talk22:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Here are some examples of conventional looking electric cars that scream electric. Any option that seems to cover all the criteria discussed above?
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 5
Option 6
Option 7
And by the way, the worlds's best selling models ever are: Nissan Leaf (over 300K), Tesla Model S (about 250K), BMW i3 (over 100K) and Renault Zoe (about 100K).--Mariordo (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
BMW i3 charging. #4 electric vehicle most sold worldwide
My preference is the black Tesla Roadster charging at home but I would be happy with any of those. I also added one more image of the BMW i3. Stepho talk22:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The lead image shouldn't focus on a secondary aspect relating to a technology, it should focus on the main technology; the car. It doesnt matter what anyone thinks of the image as long as it 1. accurately shows an electric CAR 2. focuses on the CAR, and 3. is a good contrasting image of the car, that is representative of what electric cars are. They are not just batteries and charging points. (Lord Lima Bean on mobile) LordLimaBean (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The lead image should focus on the primary aspect of the article - which is what makes electric cars different from other cars. The primary aspect of the article is about the secondary aspect of the vehicle. Agreed that they are not just batteries and charging points. But without batteries and charging points they are inert lumps of metal. Stepho talk14:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I also do prefer the black Tesla Roadster (option 4). The image is professional high resolution and excellent lighting, and shows the car highlighting it is electric. Second best, option 1 or 2.--Mariordo (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Nissan Leaf at a charging stationBest selling electric cars, Nissan Leaf (left), and Tesla Model S (right), charging at a street in Oslo.
Flowers are not the primary focus of the butterfly article, so your analogy doesn't apply. The primary topic of this article is cars that are electric, as opposed to cars that are not electric. Which makes the electric part a central theme of the article. Therefore the lead image should also reflect that as its central theme. However, I am not tied to showing chargers. Any other way that shows the electric nature of these cars would also work. Stepho talk06:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
On a more constructive note, we could just choose either the red Leaf charging that you were previously happy with or the black cars charging that you presented earlier. Stepho talk06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
No replies for 4 1/2 days. If there is no further feedback then I will put in the image of the red Leaf charging - that seemed to generate the most agreement and the least argument. Stepho talk22:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I feel like we should use the Tesla Model S picture already there for now, and search for a new picture, I don't think any of our current pictures are good enough, the one that is already up is by far the closest to the goal of accuracy, and, importantly, focus on the car itself. LordLimaBean (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately that doesn't work for 2 reasons. First of all, I have already stated that the Model S image gives the reader a misleading impression and is very, very wrong. Secondly, the guideline WP:BRD says that if we can't find a consensus on the discussion page then the article should return to the version before the changes that triggered the discussion. This means the image reverts to the "Small Euro car with coiled cable" image at the top of this discussion.
As I've stated above, my preference is the black Tesla Roadster charging. However, I'm willing to compromise on the Red Leaf charging as a second best (in my opinion) image. As a third best image, I will also compromise on the black cars charging, even though it is a bit on the dark side. If we can agree on one of these 3 images as a temporary status quo then we can continue looking for better images in a more relaxed manner. Stepho talk10:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
You are right, BRD doesn't say what to do if discussion fails - my apologies. However, WP:NOCONSENSUS says that 'a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.' It says 'commonly' because there are a few exceptions which don't apply here. The prior version is the image of the 2 white Car2Go's charging on a street. This one actually is a WP policy.
A number of times you have said that I am rejecting your selected image simply because I don't like. This is far from the truth. I am rejecting the image of a Model S charging because it gives the opposite impression of an electric car.
You linked to wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Examples of ownership behavior. Please point out which clause(s) you think I am violating. I have been very clear about why I think your selected image is actively harmful to the article and have been willing to compromise on the red or black charging images selected by you and Dennis.
I copied the text directly and accidentally got a link to there, probably should have removed that link before sending it, considering the context of the thing however, I would still read it just in-case. I also would like to mention that you have been making similar arguments for several years now, and the industry has changed. I have asked several people in a game of "what is this picture?", and while it may not provide any evidence I can show you, I am now very confident the current image clearly shows a picture of a car charging with electricity, to everyone. Perhaps if it is something you don't feel should be on the page we should do the good old pile of like 8-12 images? I think that may be one of the only ways we could both reach a consensus soon, with the pictures we currently have. LordLimaBean (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I feel I have gotten it reasonably short enough, and (hopefully) without erasing any important information, I am going to focus on updating any outdated information, I encourage other editors to do the same, as it can be hard finding up-to-date information on things such as the sales of electric vehicles, by sources not *EXTREMELY* bias towards electric vehicles. LordLimaBean (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I do have the sources to update sales of the top models, i.e., the Leaf already passed 350K, but right now do not have enough time. Probably in November I will update some, but I was planning to update the table annually, waiting for all the figures for 2018 to be in, and just update occasionally the top 3 or 4 models in the text and captions (especially when rounded sales figures are reached, like 100K, 200K, etc., or some milestone, such as the Tesla Model 3 reaching 100K.) And BTW, I do not think the official sales reports of the carmakers are biased, these are check and rechecked by the industry, so all of them are accountable for the sales figures they published.--Mariordo (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Done, cum global sales updated completed. Please note that the BAIC EC series surpassed both the BMW i3 and the Zoe. Nevertheless, the BAIC is sold only in China, and it will be discontinued in a few months, while the i3 is a global car and the Zoe is available througout Europe. So I think based on notability, that either the BMW i3 or the Renault Zoe could be shown in the lead. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Lead image
Does anybody know why the 'File:Elektro-Autos in Rom (24200438882).jpg' image has been deleted from wikicommons? The new file 'File:Car2Go Stuttgart 2012-12-05 trimmed.jpeg' is fine but I'd like to know why the old file has been wiped completely. Stepho talk23:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Stepho-wrs, according to the image's page ('File:Elektro-Autos in Rom (24200438882).jpg'), User:Hystrix deleted it on 2018-03-09T17:29:51 because: "Uploaded files of a blocked user. To prevent harm from new tenant."
BTW: I used the explanation for using the lead image to remove the placement of another Luxgen car. I am a bit puzzled why so many pictures of Luxgen models keep getting added to numerous articles even if there is no mention of these cars in the text. It is good to have representative makes from all over the world. However, it seems that the often singular edits by contributors who are anomonous, or using different names, are only for the purpose of adding images of Luxgen vehicles. CZmarlin (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, seems like a poor reason to block an image that we finally got consensus on after a long and drawn out discussion. I have left a question on his wikicommons talk page asking him to explain his reasons.
And I agree with your comments about the proliferation of Luxgen images. We certainly don't want them over every second article (and the same goes for any other brand, like animals leaving their musk everywhere :) Stepho talk02:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to google, I was able to recover the Rome image, but since the origin is unknown, I will not risk uploading it again in the Commons. Please Stepho, let me know if you get a positive reply to restore the consensus image. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
What got removed and when? I don't notice anything different... although it's been a while since I've edited anything or even really been on Wikipedia much. LordLimaBean (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The Luxgen image keeps reappearing in this article. However, this is hardly a notable commercial vehicle. It is actually a concept model. According to a 2017 article by the the Taipei Times "the automaker had failed to produce a commercially available electric vehicle, despite NT$1.6 billion in government subsidies ... The 489 cars were sold to government agencies and state-run businesses for NT$2.2 million each" (around US$72,000) Thus, this is not an ideal model to picture in this article! CZmarlin (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
You are absolutly right! And if you check this guy contributions, this is the only he has made to the project. I think it really qualifies as WP:SPAM, and he already stated that consensus is not necessary, against a basic WP policy. Today he reached 3RRs, so, one more strike, and we should request an admin to block him.--Mariordo (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictures :/
I noticed that there has been a random Luxgen vehicle on one of the primary images for a good while now, I propose we either A) Remove it due to it being a non-notable concept vehicle (Neither high sales, nor historic impact) B) Create a Collage like was consensus on the Electric Vehicle page. (Which wouldn't be idea for the page LordLimaBean (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don't mind the Luxgen image so much. It does show that there are more electric vehicles besides the Model S and the Leaf. I removed the Luxgen image myself when it was placed as the main image but it does kind of grow on me as a secondary image. Regarding a collage image - I'm reluctant to do that because it gives the impression that we can't make up our mind what the image should be. I lost the battle of using cars charging as the main image but a simple vertical list of different types of electric cars from around the world (eg Model S, Leaf, Luxgen and maybe a couple of others) is the next best thing. Stepho talk10:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Howdy all. FYI there are new pics of EVs charging in Norway and of a dedicated EV parking lot in Oslo, closer to what Stepho has proposed, and to the consensus image that was deleted a while back. Not perfect, but close, check the Commons here and here. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I like it too. Perhaps it can be added to the article just above the current topmost pic (making the top pics being car charging in Norway, Model S, Leaf, Luxgen). Stepho talk09:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The Luxgen 3 EV is not notable, just a concept car. The BMW i3, Reanault Zoe, etc are more notable, I do not see the need to include many cars. The Nissan Leaf and the Model S are the world’s top selling electric cars in history.—Mariordo (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Mariordo, like, we can include a third one if we want, but, the Luxgen doesn't seem notable, I mean, we could add the top three best selling ones; I feel it is important that the cars shown on this page are notable to prevent advertising, most images of cars in the article, and *especially* the lead images, should either be a cool technology, a major piece of history, or, most importantly common place, the Luxgen model appears to be neither common, a piece of history, a piece of new technology, nor a representative car to the industry. LordLimaBean (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Following up on LordLimaBean's idea, the BMW i3 is the third most sold EV ever, so I recommend using this image (trimmed to zoom in) with a BMW i3 charging with a quite visible cord attached to the charging station. A collage with the three cars plus the one above with an also visible charging cord could be the ideal image for the lead. These could be put together with a "multiple image" or "stack" command. Alternatively with a composed image with a photo editor (but I could do it if there is consensus). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
According to one estimate[1] the Tesla Model 3 has sold over 100k vehicles, the most up to date information I could find states that the BMW i3 has only in the upper 90k sales, although it *is* a bit outdated.LordLimaBean (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably yes, but the i3 passed 100K early this year (the sales table reports @ Dec 2017). And the Bloomerg estimate is a tracker. As per Tesla official reports (SEC worthy) the Model 3 a total of 84,235 @ Sept 2018 (plus some of the ~10K estimated by Bloomberg -this is production not deliveries - so not yet 100K). The table has to have the same date (or close to if no report is available) to make fair comparisons. By the end of 2018 the Model 3 no doubt will have surpass both the i3 and the Zoe (which also already passed 100K - and there is a Chinese model with over 100K), but the table cannot be a moving target. And BTW, cum plug-in global sales already passed 4 million. I will try to do some of sales figures updates this weekend. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
PS: Oops! I forgot, the Model X already passed the 100K milestone, a total of 106,689 @ 3Q 2018, and the Model S achieved the 250K milestone also in Sept 2018. --Mariordo (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
My proposal is the have one electric car on the highway (Nissan Leaf, best seller EV in history), one charging at home (the Tesla Roadster, could be other among the best selling), one charging on the street (BMW i3, among top selling ever) and one on a charging station (Model S or X at a Tesla Supercharging station, with the Tesla steations I see several options, but please, pick a quality pic. To start an organized discussion, what about any of these configurations for the lead? I used images from the eternal discussion - looks of conventional cars only, representative of different classes (compact, SUV, sports, luxury, ... ), and top selling or notable models (edited the two images as per the talk above)? --Mariordo (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Modern all-electric cars (Option 1) Clockwise from upper left: Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, Tesla Roadster and BMW i3
Modern all-electric cars (Option 3) Clockwise from upper left: Nissan Leaf, VW e-Golf, BMW i3, and Tesla Model X
Modern all-electric cars (Option 2) Clockwise from upper left: Nissan Leaf, BMW i3, Tesla Roadster and Tesla Model S and X
I've let it rattle around in my head for a couple of days to consider the pros and cons. The idea is basically sound, although I think vertically stacked thumbnails are better than a collage because in the collage the individual images are a bit on the tiny side and also gives the impression that we can't make up our mind. Whereas the same images shown vertically stacked give the same information but easier to see and with more confidence. A stack starting with the Leaf on the highway, then the black Model S home charging, followed by either (both?) the i3 or e-Golf street charging would be ideal. I would avoid putting multiple Teslas in the stack so that we can get a more representative suite of worldwide cars rather than just an American perspective. Perhaps something from China would also help that goal but the stack presented so far is pretty good. Stepho talk22:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This is the way the vertical stack looks like (3 options) There are no quality pics of Chinese BEVs, I chose the BAIC EC series, the current top selling plug-in in China. And the VW e-Golf looks awful, completely bloated (try it buy yourself in any of the stacks). My concern about a vertical stack is that becomes a picture wall in medium or small screens (in an iPhone looks fine because the layout is different, a column of pics alone, no text wrapping), when it joins the "sustainable energy" portal template, surpassing the length of the lead and content table, overlapping with the terminology section (I try it as a test and then reverse it right away, take a look at the history). But, if this is going to be the consensus layout I vote for #3 and only 3 pics to avoid the picture wall (that is why I prefer the collage, more compact). Cheers -- Mariordo (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I finally got around to trying it with my phone app (apologies for lateness). It ungrouped the 4 lead images and displayed them as a vertical column. I would still prefer them vertically stack for everybody (web page and phone app) but I'm not going to make it a sticking point. I'll happily accept the current group images. Stepho talk23:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't on, I had some personal stuff going on for the past while and couldn't access a desktop computer for a good deal of time. I am back now, perhaps the images could be changed? I feel like the unneeded focus on the charging point isn't really what people will see with an electric vehicle; the average person will see with an electric vehicle it on a road or parked in a garage, I propose using these images instead, and with different captions, and with the model s properly formatted:
The title only has two words but for some reason the first word is very much neglected in the images. Most people can see an image of a car and see that it is a car. It's not so obvious that it is electric. Only one of your images has anything electric and even there it looks more like a petrol hose, guiding readers towards the exact opposite of what we want to show. We can certainly substitute some of the images but there should be at least one image in the top few that unambiguously shows the electric nature of electric cars. Also, it is better to not have 2 of the 4 lead images being Tesla. Stepho talk22:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Seeking a balance, what about two cars shown charging and another two on the road? In addition, LordLimaBean proposal has to much red, and I agree about the cable being confused with a hose, so I proposed the following option with more generic descriptions and just one Tesla (I would like two diff Tesla models in a Supercharging station, but the only one available is not good quality). For the time being, I will replace the current arrangement in the for option #6, to test the vertical mosaic, may be more editors will drop in the discussion (feel free to reverse it at any time). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I searched Flickr looking for better quality images of a Tesla car charging at a Supercharging station. I included one in Option 7, but I will add a gallery soon with other options.--Mariordo (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
These are the alternatives for a Model S at a Supercharging station (or image in the bottom of the last three options):
I'm not so much worried about the i3 itself but it was the only pic in the lead paragraph that showed street charging. Also, it's nice to avoid the bias of mostly showing pics of cars sold in America. I have restored it for now according to WP:BRD but I'm open to further discussion. Stepho talk02:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not a picture of the BAIC EC-Series, I mean, it doesn't even need to be charging tbh, not a single car in the regular Car page shows a gasoline vehicle refueling, so I see no reason an electric vehicle needs to be charging.BAIC EC-180 Electric Vehicle parked in Beijing or something. If this image is actually used in the page we will come up with a better caption.LordLimaBean (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Charging is very important. Regular cars are exactly that - regular. Maybe in 20 years time (maybe more, maybe less) regular will mean electric and we will have an article for petrol cars that will need to show something about how it needed dino juice. But today electric cars are still different to regular cars and we need to show what makes them different. Which is why this article is titled 'Electric car' and not just 'Car'. Stepho talk21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but, I still see no reason to show the charging in the *lead* image, it is honestly no different except you just do it in your garage over night, it is actually less of a hassle from everything I know about them tbh, it is kind of pointless to focus on it, I could understand some pictures *in* the article, but, I see no reason as to having it as a lead image LordLimaBean (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
As per the old discussions, showing an image of an electric car charging is what makes it visually different from a regular ICE. After the most recent discussion we had two images with charging, one on the street and the other at a Tesla Supercharging. Then someone changed the Model S charging for a Model 3 not charging. To avoid more endless discussions, I just changed it for another Model 3 of better quality. Now someone wants to get rid of the i3 because it is not a pure electric car. I think it is fair that at least one image shows an electric car charging, it doesn't has to be the i3, but please not another Tesla, so any other brand but charging. Remember we chose to include images among the top selling electric cars, so there is not much room for choices. Also I would avoid any of the two Chinese BEV because there are no good quality images available and the other models are more representative because they are available in several countries. I am OK with the stack as it is now.--Mariordo (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
It's debatable whether it is a pure electric car or not because of the petrol powered range extender engine. It goes 51 km on battery charge (which is sufficient for many people) and 370 km on petrol+battery. Stepho talk13:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Is the regenerative braking shown correctly on the diagram?
It is simplistic but correct. Traditional brakes turn kinetic energy into heat energy via friction between the brake pads and the brake disc rotor. Regenerative braking turns kinetic energy into electrical energy by attaching a generator to the wheel. Stepho talk00:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be correct or incorrect. It doesn't contain any information about how regenerative braking works, other than showing the location of a couple components. These are examples of illustrations that convey more information on how the systems function. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
A lot of the illustrations in the link above are for hybrids - which I think is too complicated to discuss as I understand they are becoming less popular than pure electric anyway. According to the Regenerative brake article "the electric motor uses the vehicle's momentum to recover energy" so in the case of a dual motor all-electric car like in the diagram aren't the red circles inside the wheels a bit confusing don't you think?Chidgk1 (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
easy enough to turn them into wire frames, but my opinion is that the entire diagram is just representative anyway. Better people understand the concept of energy harnessed from momentum?Ian Furst (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to shift from "rechargeable" to "chargeable" as "re-" is redundant
Re-chargeable implies that it can be charged and re-charged many times over. It's also the word in common use that people expect. Stepho talk10:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be kept and a couple of Chinese manufacturers should be added but maybe it will not be clear for a little while which will survive the shakeout and become major exporters. Perhaps BYD and BAIC. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
It can only represent rumours and guesses on the part of non-company people or marketing and wishful thinking on the part of company people. Even when true (which is unverifiable), it will get out of date quickly and will need constant maintenance (which often doesn't happen on WP). As per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it should be removed. Stepho talk22:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not rumor or guesses. All of the references point back to plans the company has announced, so none of the plans are from non-company people. WP:Crystal is about predicting the future. This isn't about some unknown future. This is about definite, current product plans by major manufacturers. It is true that plans change over times and the longer into the future the plans the less likely they are to be accurate, but that is not what this is about. It is strictly about today's plans, not some future pie in the sky dream. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I find it hard to trust company future predictions - they have such a bad reputation for being wrong or at least the time frame changes. All of the large manufacturers have plans for electric cars. It's just a case of how much investment and when - both of which change according to fickle buyer and shareholder opinions. This seems like a section that is going to take continual effort to keep up-to-date and really just says "all the big boys have electric car plans of some type". Stepho talk00:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Prediction is about the future. Plan, about the present, preparing for the future. Predictions should be kept to a minimum or none. Yes, the plans can be fickle, but the trend for last couple of years is to accelerate EV plans. Agree if the section isn't updated more than once a year, it should be deleted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Lots of good information in this article: https://www.autonews.com/future-product/era-electrification . Subscription required, but I'm able to read it anyways by looking at page source. Article claims a hundred electric vehicles are coming. Quote:
Here are the more than 100 electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles that Automotive News has reported as being in development and headed for debuts through 2023.
"As of 2019, electric cars are less expensive to run than comparable internal combustion engine cars due to the lower cost of maintenance and energy,[48] but cost significantly more to initially buy if bought new.[49][50]"
That is completely false. Some models are indeed more expensive, but if you look at the high end vehicles and compare them to actual comparable cars, they are actually quite cost competitive and far cheaper after incentives. The Model 3, for example, is very well priced in comparison to the BMW 3 series, and it dominates the EV market. B5429671 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I have removed "significantly" from the statement for now. Suggest you check purchase prices again next year once many more models are on the market, e.g. in Europe from VW, so it will be easier to compare prices with non-luxury gasmobiles. Then if you have a good cite you can change the article yourself.Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"World's first electric car built by Victorian inventor in 1884" not so world's "first" considering and other constructors of electric cars before 1884 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.251.172 (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Many other people built one-off's and prototypes before Parker's 1884 vehicle but he is listed as the first production electric vehicle. In either case, the possible discrepancy is with the Telegraph, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia has documented it's evidence. Stepho talk03:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Claim of MOSFETs enabling EV adoption
Specifically, this sentence: "The emergence of metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) technology led to the development of modern electric road vehicles." does not seem backed up by its citation, which is simply about MOSFETs in relation to AC motor drives. In particular, most production EVs use IGBTs, with only very recent examples (e.g. Tesla Model 3) using MOSFETs. TD-Linux (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Daniel, I am restoring the lead images, those were chosen by consensus here, you cannot unilaterally change it to your tastes. Seek consensus please. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
intro: Despite the rapid growth experienced, the global stock of plug-in electric cars represented just about 1 out of every 250 vehicles (0.40%) on the world's roads by the end of 2018.
The update for 2019 has doubled, and would double again if we compared cars to cars, versus cars to vehicles. Didn't find a reference, but can find references from different sources that you can calculate that info. Per wp:lead we should have a summary of most important contents. That sentence was interesting in 2018, but I think it is stale and not one of the most important topics now towards later half of 2020. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
If this puff piece for EVs is going to remain even slightly in touch with reality then it is entirely valid to mention that actual fleet penetration is small, in reality. Greglocock (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
That single number is very deceptive though. To put it in perspective, the size of the fleet is growing exponentially, with around 60% annual growth. At that rate it would be 50% of the worldwide fleet by 2030. GliderMaven (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
...using energy stored in rechargeable batteries. There may be fuel cells as well.
Although the 1st paragraph says: This article is about battery electric cars.
the sentence in the 2nd paragraph: An electric car is a car which is propelled by one or more electric motors, using energy stored in rechargeable batteries.
is not true because: principally, the electric energy for an electric car can come out of a fuel cell, in real time.
Therefore I suggest to change this sentence into:
"An electric car is a car which is propelled by one or more electric motors, using electric energy.
This energy can come out of rechargeable batteries or out of a fuel cell.
Since the 1880s up to today (2020) most electric cars got their energy from rechargeable batteries"
{Of course a native English speaker may improve on my English.}
Please ping me. Steue (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Technically, a series hybrid (ie a petrol engine driving a generator, driving electric motor(s) ) is also an electric car. A parallel hybrid may also be an electric car at certain times.
We need to decide if this article is about the motor (including pure battery electrics, fuel cells, serial hybrids, solar cells and probably a few others) or about the ultimate on-board energy source (pure battery, petrol engine, hydrogen fuel cell, etc). The difference is whether it gets power from an electrical connection (pure electric) or if it requires some other fuel source (petrol, hydrogen, compressed air, solar, methane, etc). Stepho talk23:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion is:
One article "Electric car": about those things/aspects, which all these types of more or less electric cars have in common (e.g. efficiency/milage, noise, environmental pollution) and those aspects which are interesting to compare to each other.
And, because these different types have so different ways of integrating the electric motor(s) into the transmission i.e. gear box and/or axles and also of getting and/or generating and storing their energy, I think each type (e.g. plug-in hybrid) must have its own article.
In this case, with respect to hybrids, above suggested sentence should rather contain the possibility of getting propelled electrically, like:
"An electric car is a car which can be propelled by one or more electric motors ..."
(The bold stress is meant only here in/for this discussion.)
I don't want to get all obvious about this but if you are serious then it basically means any car with an electrical stage in the transmission. Greglocock (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Top selling highway-capable all-electric passenger cars produced between 2008 and December 2020
When we sort this table on the "Global Annual Sales" column, the figure 120,000 appears on top or on bottom of the sorted table. This is an error but I do not find why 120,000 does not appear on the right place !
The '~' approximation sign doesn't sort as a number. The numbers are mostly in multiples of 1000, which is a sign that these are rounded numbers, so I just removed the '~'. Stepho talk22:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
