Talk:Car seat
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Alternative[edit]
Perhaps the alternative can be mentioned aswell: no seat at all; with just a special seat belt to hold someone anchored to the vehicle chassis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.221.172 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge discussion[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Drop Stop is heavily padded with unnecessary detail about the rather basic operation of this thing that stops stuff from falling down between your seats. We don't need a complete list of every talk show that mentioned this alongside various new products. A sentence explaining why the thing is colored black is a sentence wasted. We know it's shadowy down there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- Leave separate - Per WP:N, the subject has received sufficient media coverage from reliable independent sources to warrant having its own article. SueDonem (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:N? Your reasoning for not merging is contradicted by the policy you've cited. It says a stand-alone article is not mandatory even if the topic meets the notablitiy criteria. See WP:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." The point of this merge is to put this subject in its proper context, and present it where it most readily understood. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- So to be clear, you agree that the subject meets WP:N, but per WP:NOPAGE you question whether it needs its own article. NOPAGE provides three questions:
- Does other information provide needed context?
- Do related topics provide needed context?
- What sourcing is available now?
- Please lay out your rationale per these three questions, so I can consider per policy. SueDonem (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I already explained my rationale. If you remove the fluff and trivia, you're left with a sentence or two, which will fit neatly into Car seat. The best argument against merging I can think of is that it would make more sense to merge it into Center console (automobile), since the existence of Drop Stop is more a consequence of cars having center consoles between seats, rather than seats alone. But either way, it should be merged because it's a small part of the larger topic. I prefer car seat but I can see why some editors might prefer center console.
The reason this kind of thing happens is that a topic can get enough coverage to meet the notability minimums, yet the quantity of encyclopedic facts about it is minuscule. An encyclopedia only needs to explain that Drop Stop is a device for catching objects between the seat, and console, and that the invention got a bit of media attention. Full stop. The only reason to list every single TV show that plugged the product, or belabor the features of it, such as not interfering with seat adjustments, is if this were an advertisement. But it's not an ad, so we shouldn't. Thus all we should say fits in one or two sentences.
Notable + only two sentences = merge. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- It would seem weird and even more of an advertisement to mention Drop Stop in the middle of car seat. That you are choosing between car seat and center console demonstrates that this article needs to stand on its own as the subject purports to solve an issue which both the car seat and center console create with one another. Otherwise, should we merge doorstop into door or into floor? :-) I'm happy to continue this discussion. SueDonem (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I just told you I'm not conflicted between car seat and center console; car seat is the best choice. I only granted that I could understand if an editor were to make that argument. It would be recognizable as a rational argument, rather than mere opinion or whim. I won't dispute anyone's opinions, though they carry little weight. If someone proposes merging doorstop into door, that can be addressed on its merits. We'd be paralyzed if every single editorial decision had to be a universal precedent.
So your grounds for opposing the merge are "seems weird". Fair enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- I spent some time with the article today. That it describes what the product is made of, how it's used, where it is best used, what inspired its invention, and why it is designed the way it is — it's all encyclopedic. I also found the media coverage to be helpful in describing the product's journey in recognition and business achievement — again all encyclopedic. So beyond creating a weird (and likely WP:UNDUE) tangent in car seat, the current article contains encyclopedic datapoints which would be lost in the proposed merger. SueDonem (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I just told you I'm not conflicted between car seat and center console; car seat is the best choice. I only granted that I could understand if an editor were to make that argument. It would be recognizable as a rational argument, rather than mere opinion or whim. I won't dispute anyone's opinions, though they carry little weight. If someone proposes merging doorstop into door, that can be addressed on its merits. We'd be paralyzed if every single editorial decision had to be a universal precedent.
- It would seem weird and even more of an advertisement to mention Drop Stop in the middle of car seat. That you are choosing between car seat and center console demonstrates that this article needs to stand on its own as the subject purports to solve an issue which both the car seat and center console create with one another. Otherwise, should we merge doorstop into door or into floor? :-) I'm happy to continue this discussion. SueDonem (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- I already explained my rationale. If you remove the fluff and trivia, you're left with a sentence or two, which will fit neatly into Car seat. The best argument against merging I can think of is that it would make more sense to merge it into Center console (automobile), since the existence of Drop Stop is more a consequence of cars having center consoles between seats, rather than seats alone. But either way, it should be merged because it's a small part of the larger topic. I prefer car seat but I can see why some editors might prefer center console.
- So to be clear, you agree that the subject meets WP:N, but per WP:NOPAGE you question whether it needs its own article. NOPAGE provides three questions:
- Per WP:N? Your reasoning for not merging is contradicted by the policy you've cited. It says a stand-alone article is not mandatory even if the topic meets the notablitiy criteria. See WP:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." The point of this merge is to put this subject in its proper context, and present it where it most readily understood. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The use of a suspension seat[edit]
A seat similat to a truck suspension seat appears also to be used on large buses and transit buses. Peter Horn User talk 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Link to 'Ergonomics' page on tab should be removed[edit]
In my opinion, the hyperlink to the 'Ergonomics' page on a tab in this article should be removed and instead a link to the 'Ergonomics' page should be put into the 'See also' section as in my opinion the tab would look more presentable without the link. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, the Ergonomics section detracts from the article and should be removed.--GodSka (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)