Talk:Car wash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing about bikini car wash ? Hektor 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks more like an environmental article than anything... Moschenjr 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

I've gone through the article and cleaned up a lot of it, but I'm not sure I got everything, which is why I'm leaving the {tone} tag. Darry2385 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is still sloppy

It still needs cleaning up IMO 70.51.127.179 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of information in here is wrong or misleading. I plan on doing a major overhaul of the information as I am currently in the carwash industry. My company, a fully automatic, has been in business since 1948! They are stating the mid 50's? Dasoomer 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I own a car wash, and the description of the wash process sounds like it describes one specific wash, when in truth there is a lot of variations in the industry. For example, I don't run as much equipment because I have two scrubbers at the front prepping the car. Inline tire shine is far from universal as well. I last visited this article some time ago, and it is a mess now. The section on Bikini car wash doesn't tie in well, and there needs to be a lot of work done on the chemistry involved. I look forward to seeing your edits Dasoomer. Seaphoto 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hazards in automatic car washes?

Could we maybe add a part in this article where it mentions about the potental hazards in automatic car washes? Like maybe vehicle damage, people getting stuck in there, exc.?--71.116.37.15 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus is against the move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Car wash → Car wash (business) — Based on the article traffic tool, more than half the —TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

hits are for derivatives of car wash. See car wash 7723 car wash (song) 5650 car wash (film) 3172. --Gonezales (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support based on tool above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current use is the primary use. Making moves based on some generated numbers that does not take into account badly edited articles is not a good basis for decisions. Exactly what results from that tool would justify moving the primary use away from the primary name space? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply It may be the primary use in your mind, but there is no page that gets the majority of the car wash viewers.
      Car_Wash_(song) has been viewed 5650 times in 200802.
      Car_Wash_(film) has been viewed 3172 times in 200802.
      Car_wash has been viewed 7723 times in 200802.
      Car wash (album) will surely get many hits when it is created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • WP:DAB doesn't mention the traffic tool. It would be sensible to discuss it there before using it as the sole grounds for renaming. For one thing, you could probably generate thousands of move requests this way. Sam Staton (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Page views do not directly equate to primary use. It may be a part of a bigger picture. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is the primary use when one think of "car wash". All others take the name from the business. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - moving it would be silly. There really is only one topic, and that is a facility for washing cars. All the rest are derivative and should be the ones that get parenthetically identified. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Car wash obviously has primary usage over a film and a song. Even if we are to give any credence to this traffic tool (and I don't think for a minute that we should), it quite clearly shows that car wash gets the most hits. It's all a question of how you interpret the numbers. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If that's what this tool indicates, it just shows the tool is misleading. Primary usage in terms of WP:NC is obvious from even the quickest scan of the disambiguation page. Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the tool clearly indicates that car wash is the primary usage, with 37% more views than the next most viewed page, and that the page should not be moved. --Gonezales (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PC78. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. Using wikipedia page views to determine primary topic is problematically solipsistic. At the very least there needs to be a wider discussion about the appropriateness of using the tool for that purpose. older ≠ wiser 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this. Why is "business" an appropriate disambiguator? The word "business" doesn't currently appear on the page at all. Sam Staton (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This nomination appears to be part of a campaign to revisit WP:NC in terms of a web tool. If this particular case is any guide, the web tool in question is quite useless. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Web statistics tool for some discussion of the statistics tool. Andrewa (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Changes regarding touchless and touch-free car washing.

I respect the hard work that the original author and other contributors have done with this article and do not want to anger or offend. I believe the car wash industry and the casual reader will be best served, however, by an article that refrains from opinion, and works to simply outline the history of the industry and the various methods and equipment car washes utilize. This is why I was compelled to edit statements regarding touch-free car washing which seemed to perhaps be based on opinion rather than cited studies, statistical evidence or research. Conversely, there are studies which show the positive effects of touch-free washing, but I chose not to include them in my edit because I do not want to degrade an otherwise fine article into a battle of words defending the benefits of one technology over an other which seems contrary to the intention of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispy2001 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)