Talk:Roadside assistance

Opening heading
I have done some re-writing of this, but it would benefit from an international view and it needs some sources and/or references. In my search for articles that could link to this one, I found the very similar Emergency road service. It may be a good idea to merge them. Adrian  M. H.  19:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

go ahead and do it, ERS is just a stub with the same info as this one. if someone else has a better name in the future then they can change it, but for now, merge Emergency Road Service into Breakdown Cover. Guydrury 15:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'll work on at the weekend. Adrian   M. H.  16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request rename to "Emergency road service"

 * 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. 

Page moved to Roadside assistance. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Breakdown cover → Emergency road service — Emergency road service seems to be a more descriptive/universal term. I'm not familiar with the term "breakdown cover" from American English. &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. If we can find a common term that is understand everywhere then, per WP:COMMONALITY we should use it but "Emergency road service" isn't it as it means nothing to me (as a British person). As more than just personal observations a google UK search doesn't return any British-relevant results in it's first few pages. Dpmuk (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Would Roadside assistance be a possibility? &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems much more suitable as it is a term I think most British people would understand and a similar google search returns the "correct" results. Dpmuk (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, "Roadside assistance" sounds great to me. Should I change the request accordingly, or would that cause confusion? (I think it will take an admin to do the move since both terms already exist as redirects to this article.) &mdash;Mu Mind (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, as someone who hangs around requested moves, I'd suggest leaving it as it is as it will just make the already existing comments confusing - the closing admin should read all of this anyway. If there is a lack of comment on the new proposal (because people haven't read all of the previous discussion) we can always start a new discussion once this one finishes. Dpmuk (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support "breakdown cover" doesn't actually describe anything. It could just mean throwing a tarp over a broken down train. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RETAIN the first article gets primary status. "emergency road service" was created August 2006, "breakdown cover" was created October 2006. Therefore "breakdown cover" is a violation of WP:ENGVAR by selecting the new UK English article over the older article. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the first arguement is a non starter as "emergency road service" could by a service that provides emergency roads - Emergency road service does not mean breakdown cover to someone from the UK and it would appear the opposite is true from someone from the US. If someone isn't used to a term then both of these terms are open to intrpretation.  WP:RETAIN suggests that we should be guided by the "first major contributor" and in my opinion the original ""emergency road service" had no major contributor as it was a stub and so we should retain breakdown cover.  Also at a more philisophical level the point of WP:ENGVAR is to prevent move wars, multiple changes etc and as this title has been stable at the current location for so long it seems most in keeping with the spirit of WP:ENGVAR to leave it where it is - see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.  That said I would support a move to Roadside assistance per the above. Dpmuk (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support rename to Roadside assistance. I agree "breakdown cover" could be confusing, but so could "emergency road service", which would suggest to me an official police-type organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2011 (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.

Volunteerism / Chaverim
You've removed this section twice, once without any explanation, and once giving a biased explanation. In the latter, you've personally deemed Chaverim non-notable, but consensus is that it is notable. The fact that its article was nominated for deletion is in no way relevant if the nomination failed. Please restore the section. Dovid (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it has been nominated for deletion, it is clearly of highly questionable notability. Now, do you really think that an org of highly questionable notability that happens to deliver roadside assistance should be mentioned on the general RA article? I'm sure I don't have to explain to you that this would be WP:UNDUE as well as a host of other things. I'm sure there are many volunteer organizations around the world that offer a similar service. If you want to add a section on volunteer orgs in general, then that might be more acceptable.Noodleki (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone can nominate any article for deletion. I could nominate this article as non-notable. Doesn't mean I would be right. If consensus goes against nomination, that's pretty much the end of the story. You are still editorializing; "Clearly of highly questionable notability" -- no, really not, even if you throw in or remove a few qualifiers. Finally, while the short section does not violate WP:UNDUE, feel free to add volunteer orgs as you see fit that are appropriate. Dovid (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, maybe you work for this Chaverim, I don't know. Please try to see that it is completely inappropriate to have an entire section on one almost unknown organization. It would be like adding to the police article an entire section on a particular volunteer community group.Noodleki (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)