Talk:Sedan (automobile)

Concerns
This article claims that the sedan is the most common configuration. I don't know of any statistics, but I'd say that, certainly in Europe, the hatchback is just as common. If anyone has statistics or can clarify this in some other way then please tell me. If not, then I'll probably edit it to say that the sedan is one of the most common configurations. 999 11:26, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The photograph of "Tata Indigo" in the article is not a sedan but a station wagon variant of the car called "Tata Indigo Marina", if observed closely one can see the letters "SW" on the front number plate in the photo for "Station Wagon".. The photo has to be changed.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.68.145.230 (talk • contribs). On 12:37, February 20, 2006.

There only seem to be examples from the US, I didn't even know a sedan was a saloon car the article is too american rather than international. (Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC))

2-door sedan
I've added a merge proposition for the 2-door sedan article, it more or less says the same thing as the 2-door sedan section. Alternatively, we could merge the section into that article; however, 2-door sedan is the only specific type of sedan to have its own article. --Varco 22:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just finished the merge. --Hetar 01:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I called it Two-door sedan in the article now, too, bringing in some consistency and trying to avoid sentences that start with 2. —Camaro96 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC).
 * The link to "Coupé" is somewhat misleading as a two-door sedan is not a coupe. Further I included the expression "coach" which was used by many manufacturers for this body style, mainly in France but also in the U.S. --Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation
denomination

sedan should leed to the disambiguation. its utterly ignorant to think the car would be the first thing to look up. a wellknown battle took place there and its a big city.--Tresckow 15:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think most people looking for the French town would go to Sedan, France, and anyone looking for the battle would go to Battle of Sedan.  Calling it a big city is a stretch, its own article states that it is only a town with 20,000 people.  More people will probably know what a sedan car is than what happened at the Battle of Sedan.  -Varco 18:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

maybe in the us but no british, australian or anyone in the rest of the world knows what a sedan is. so general information and not specificly american should be emphasized. at least sedan should bring you tto the disambiguation.--Tresckow 13:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like sour grapes.
 * I disagree with Tresckow and agree with Varco--true, a Brit may not know what a sedan is, but in that case s/he would look up "saloon", which would not be ambiguous at all. So, the only question is North Americans looking up sedan, and frankly, I hadn't heard of Sedan, France before reading this.  And when looking up places, unless it's someplace known worldwide like Paris or Tokyo, I put the country name in after the city name.  I think the other uses link at the top of the article is the perfect solution for those looking for Sedan, France and getting the car style instead.  Jrbbopp 14:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sedan is a place thats well know word wide, your personal knowledge of geography has no bearing on that. Sedan should go to Disambiguation as the car classification is exclusively North American whilst the Place and the Chair Universaly use Sedan through out the Angloshere. French doesn't distinguish between towns and cities so the translation of Ville is irrelevent. As to what you say on world wide knowledge, Jermyn Redirects to a town/city in Pensylvania that none outside of the US has heard of even though the Jermyn familly and the street are much more well known. Its entirely a case of the Americanisation thats ruining Wikipedia.(Morcus (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

I understand where you're coming from but what do you think would happen if Sedan linked to the article about the town and only gave a link to the car style as a "see also"? you know as well as I do that there would be far more complaining, whining and general petty back and forth as is always the case when a large group of users collide with another large group. Compromise is key, I'd wager people looking for information on the car style will likely type Sedan and those who are looking for the town will either type "Sedan, France", "Battle of Sedan" or will do so after finding themselves at the car style page - it's not a huge issue. 84.67.49.73 (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a big issue, compromise is the key and the biggest compromise would be a disambiguation page which would obviously contain the car body style, the chair, the place and the battle. The big deal is the over Americanisation of wikipedia. the Sedan article doesn't give a correct deffinition of the saloon body style but I'm sure any attempt to make a page on said body style would quickly be deleted. The only car body style with different names in English and American that doesn't use the American is Coupé, surely if it was about compromise that wouldn't be the case. To restate my position, it is a big issue because its a case of Usonion Arogance which is ruining Wikipedia and the assumption that because most americans will be looking for the car body that everyone in the Anglosphere will be. This is sadly the case with so much here. I can't speak for anywhere else but most people in the UK are more likely to think Chair than car if you say sedan and most wouldn't know that the Saloon body is called sedan in north America.Why should the rest of us have to go through more for the benefit of the US and Canada (And before you try and claim most english speakers are from those to places I point you towards India and Pakistan, Both countries where English is the official language and where the vast majority also speak it.(Morcus (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC))


 * One way to look at it would be to go to Special:WhatLinksHere/Sedan_(disambiguation), look through each of the pages that link to Sedan and see to what topic they apply.  I went through the first 500 and found only four that aren't referring to the car style.   Three of these should have pointed to Sedan, France, so I repaired those, and the fourth, located at Battle of Stalingrad, I found to be slightly ambiguous (although most likely refers to Sedan, France).  Personally, I find that alone to be overwhelming evidence that on Wikipedia, the Primary topic for the term "Sedan" is the car style.  In any case, not to sound like a jerk (hopefully I don't because I don't mean to), but I would like to throw in the reminder that whoever was responsible for changing Sedan from a redirect to the car into a redirect to the disambiguation page is also responsible for updating all of the links that point to Sedan, currently more than 1400.  "Links to the old page title will not be changed; be sure to check for double redirects (using "What links here") after the move. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go." (emphasis added)   It would certainly be easier to have it redirect to the car since that's what the overwhelming majority of those links refer to.  Rejectwater (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously there are many brands of cars, and even more models, so the car body style is numerous, and counting links is pointless. Yet, in an encyclopedia, a car style named after a French town (like Limousine) is still less significant than the town itself, or a major battle fought there. See MS Encarta . Its safe to say that a British or Australian source could care less for the Americanisms. US car buffs should learn that there is something outside the lower 48, even if they can't drive there. If you worry about the links, make a WP:Bot Request. -- Matthead Discuß   17:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's less pointless to follow what you interpret as the example set by Encarta than to go along with the well established standard on Wikipedia that Sedan refers to the car style, Sedan, France to the town in France, and Battle of Sedan to the battle? Making this change is needlessly disruptive, and in absence of consensus there is no authority to make it. Rejectwater (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sedan (car) refers to the car style. We can change that to saloon (car) anytime if you want. And a bot can replace Sedan with Sedan in the 1000+ articles. BTW: Wikpedia is no democracy, and consensus can change. You may want to read up the the well established standards on Policies and guidelines.-- Matthead Discuß   12:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I realise this is old now but considering that Saloon is used the world over anyhow, while Sedan is mostly confined to America, maybe a switch should occur and the article be renamed to reflect the majority, rather than the minority?
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please review the WP guidelines in MOS:ENGVAR. No variant of the English language is inherently more correct than another. Moreover, there is no point in mixing up a type of automobile design with a tavern, a room, or establishment where alcoholic drinks are served over a counter; nor with an area found below the deck of a yacht. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Morcus says that this debate is significant because it constitutes "Americanisation of wikipedia". Wikipedia can't become Americanized, wikipedia originated in America, it was "Americanized" to begin with and has only moved gradually away from that and become increasingly international. Which naturally creates confusion. The 330 million English speakers in North America would be very unlikely to have heard of a small French town or of a relatively obscure battle between the French and Prussians. The European wars of the 19th century get very little attention even from highly literate people in America, and to some degree Canada, because the continent of North America was isolated from them and completely focused on the Civil War, the battle over slavery, Reconstruction, and the settling of the West. The endless clashes between monarchies on the other side of the Atlantic seem chaotic and unfamiliar in comparison to North Americans. For these hundreds of millions of English speakers, Sedan is primarily a type of car, not a place or a battle. Walterego (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Changes
Regarding the edits by Racky pt (talk)
 * Headings and subheadings are changed only after careful consideration - See: Manual of Style
 * The "See also" section should not be expanded. It is not to be a collection of internal links (except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles) - See WP:NOT
 * Regarding the comment "Forget history, who needs?" -- Please recall that Wikipedia is a free content, multilingual encyclopedia written collaboratively by contributors around the world. That also means explaining the history and origin of the word "sedan". What better way to illustrate the first use of the word by showing a the drawing of object that was called "sedan". This adds more to the encyclopedia than yet another picture of a modern day 4-door automobile. Thank you - CZmarlin 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Carry on good work about history. What i see is there is little about trends in contemporary sedans. all the pics are of olden days. also visitor should not end up in article, he should find ways to navigate. hence i wished to expand see also, you removed hatchback also -not acceptable. as for current trend suv sales are falling and sedan and hatchback are coming to prominence and make for most of market share in developing countries. also not much about design details of sedan like FF and FR layout(not even mentioned). such contemporary info is missing which are more important than history. Racky pt 06:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced crap
These sections were unreferenced. No such thing called S M L XL nor XXL sedan exists on this earth. pasting the code here.

Small sedans
Sedan body styles on smaller cars are now less popular in Europe after the hatchback revolution during the 1970s. In the U.S. and many developing countries notchback sedans like the Volkswagen Jetta retain popularity.

The first major European manufacturer to phase out sedans in favour of hatchbacks was Renault, who introduced the hatchback (Renault 4) in 1961. In the case of Renault, the only sedan offered is the Megane; rival Fiat actually does not offer a sedan model in its European range at all.

On the other hand, the Japanese and Korean automakers continue to offer compact sedans as a popular body design for consumers in a range of brands and models sold in world markets.



Large Sedans
The 3-box sedan body style is still used on large and luxury cars. The hatchback feature has been notably unsuccessful in penetrating this segment worldwide. Instead, the angle of the rear window has been steadily increasing, as seen on the Audi A6, making many modern sedans resemble fastback sedans.

DO NOT ADD without a valid reference. small and large are there in any thing. keep crap away Ali mehmood zaki 14:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This entire article has only 2 references and I put one of those there on a piece that was deleted by someone complaining that my info lacked reference. the whole article should be referenced.(Morcus (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC))


 * The two of you have misunderstood, small/large saloon isn't a classification but a description. The sections should have been challenged for references, but you removed them for the wrong reason. Alastairward (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The first sedan
As far as I'm concerned, a sedan is basically a car with roof. And, as far as I'm concerned, the first sedan was the Renault Voiturette of 1899. I don't reckon of an earlier sedan, but if someone knows, please let me know.--Fluence (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A Saloon cannot have a tailgate.
I got the reference from the 'Little Oxford English Dictionary' Eighth Edition 2002 isbn 0-19-860452-1 on page 617 under Saloon deffinition 4, Brit a car with a seperate boot. Any British English dictionary should givew the same or at least very simillar deffinition. This is the reason why I started a seperate article for Saloon. I must ask How the OED can be questionable as a source when the article only has one other source and that source is about where the word came from.(Morcus (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm not questioning the OED, just your interpretation of it. Given your account of the entry, it doesn't seem to support the separate articles.Alastairward (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the OED online, their definition of saloon is; "c. A type of motor car with a closed body for four or more passengers." This does not mean that the "hatchback saloon/sedan" can be removed from the article, or that you can place a nonsensical comment below. Alastairward (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. That link doesn't work unless one has a subscription to it. 2. I'm not advocating a removal of the section as a Sedan body can have a tailgate. 3. the very deffinition of a Saloon is a car with a seperate Boot, Therefore you cannot have a hatchback saloon. Though I couldn't see the deffinition you were reering to, for a car to have 4 doors and be a hatchback it would have to have an odd number of passenger doors as a hatch is a door.(Morcus (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Dear Morcus,
 * 1) I don't have a subscription but I can access it.
 * 2) Your poorly spelled addition to the article is a contradiction to the rest of the article, either you believe the section should stay or shouldn't. If you can't make up your mind I'll remove your addition.Alastairward (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Alternate move: - Moved Sedan (disambiguation) to Sedan. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sedan (car) → Sedan — Procedural move. Given the recent squabbling, it's clearly anything but uncontroversial. A wider discussion should hopefully bring some kind of resolution to this. — DeLarge (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose. Sedan (car) is the proper article name for the car style, as Sedan primarily refers to the French city. Anyway, it is ambiguous, and Sedan should be, or redirect to, the disamb list. False links could be fixed with a bot, but the bot operator wait until the disputes are settled, so let's get over with it.-- Matthead Discuß   15:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I think this is a pretty clear case of where there are two topics of comparable primacy; the current setup works fine. Knepflerle (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Sedan (car) is the primary use. A far larger number of people understand this meaning than the small French town. (In case it matters, I am English, not American.) 128.232.1.193 (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Certainly not primary usage; I regret that our anon has never heard of the Battle of Sedan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose (and conversely, support for the alternative)—although references to the car are numerically much more prevalent than any other usage (on Wikipedia), that is not the determining factor; it may rather reflect a Wikipedia bias towards American and more-recent topics. The Battle of Sedan is historically significant and the town itself is a notable enough topic to attract some attention.  I'm therefore inclined to favor having the disambig page at Sedan and the car at Sedan (car).  --Russ (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose and move dab page as suggested below, but... I think there is ambiguity here, but I think I'd dispute the "no primary usage" argument based on the available stats. Battle of Sedan receives a steady 4-5k hits per month, while Sedan, France receives about half that. By comparison, the Sedan page has been getting 35-40k of monthly views. I don't know how much of that is affected by one article being at the "sedan" page, so I'm tentatively supporting the primacy of the dab page for the moment. But if the dab page is moved to sedan and the figures stay the same for the next 3-4 months (i.e. the automotive context continues to get 10x the hits of any other article) then I'd support moving sedan (car) back as it'll have been demonstrated to be the primary usage. Also, given the current page hit stats I think the dab page should be edited to move the automotive context nearer the top. Even if we think it's a less historically significant or encyclopedic topic ourselves, that's a subjective judgement on our part and shouldn't be applied to the detriment of readers. --DeLarge (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Took this to WP:RM in the hope of resolving the discussions at Talk:Sedan (car) (above), User talk:Morcus, and User talk:Matthead. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As an alternative proposal, editors may also wish to comment on whether Sedan (disambiguation) should be moved to Sedan, thus establishing the disambiguation page as the target of that title. --Russ (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with that. Knepflerle (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support move of Sedan (disambiguation) to Sedan. As a British English speaker, the first thing I think of when hearing the word is a sedan chair not a type of car. DWaterson (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Replacement of images
There is no need to replace the "rights free" image of the Opel 2-door sedan with a low-resolution scan of a General Motors PR picture of a Vega. Thank you, CZmarlin (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't own the article and you don't ALWAYS decide. Your welcome,(Vegavairbob (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
 * What is the rationale for replacing it? Alastairward (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Vegavairbob seems very keen on increasing the number of Chevrolet Vega pictures in WP articles. In this instance I agree with CZmarlin. Also, regardless of the quality issue that he touches on, if the Opel image is replaced by any American car, then the article is illustrated entirely by American vehicles, which gives them undue weight. And Vegavairbob? CZmarlin's logical and reasonable response to your unexplained image substitution does not indicate an ownership issue. Writegeist (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on anything...I didn't realize we need a strict country of origin balance with images. My image was a "thin-pillar" 2-door sedan with a text addition. Probably a new (sedan) reference for many. That's why I chose it.(Vegavairbob (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC))

Two-door sedans
Hi. In my experience, most people understand that a sedan has 4 doors and a coupe has 2 doors. Therefore I request that references be provided supporting that "two-door sedan" is a commonly used term. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Three years later, no comment... Yeah, super confusing here though. Sedan = 4 doors, regardless of rear end, front end, drivetrain, etc. You just can't have a 2 door sedan, as it's literally saying "two door, four door car." Makes as much sense as "four door sports car," which has also never been done. 68.229.212.186 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sedan doesn't mean 4-doors. A 2-door sedan is usually a two door version of a four door sedan with the bodies having the same proportion with the only difference being the number of doors. VW Beetles were considered 2-door sedans, so was the Ford Pinto with a trunk and not a hatch. The Ford Fairmont was sold in two and four door sedans but offered a unique coupe with a special roofline.

Coupes typically have smaller rear seat areas, abbreviated rear rooflines or rear quarter windows that are smaller. There is a lot of gray area but not all 2-door cars are coupes. Some are sedans. Watchdevil (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

hatchback sedans
i propose deleting section 1.4 hatchback sedans because it is an oxymoron.

According to the wikipedia article definition of hatchback "sloped back and a rear door that swings upwards when opened" a sedan does not qualify because it does not have a rear door. it has a trunk lid.

Also, this article states that a sedan has a 3 box configuration but hatchbacks have a 2 box configuration. thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.138.255 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daihatsu Applause has a three-box profile and a huge hatch incorporating the rear windscreen and the "boot lid". Very odd, but it might be a "hatchback sedan". Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hatchback is just the back... hatch. It doesn't care about the doors. Thus, you can have two or four door hatchbacks. 68.229.212.186 (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

How to change the waterpump
How to change the waterpump Bonnieadrian (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Bonnieadrian and thanks for joining Wikipedia. This talk page is for discussions on how to improve the article, not really for discussing Sedans as such. I left a welcome message with more information on how to best use Wikipedia on your Talk page. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Very broad definition
Hello. The textbook definitions for sedan are very broad (possibly applying to everything from a Porsche 356 to the Maybach Ultimate Luxury Concept SUV!). Does anyone have sources with more practical descriptions of what a sedan usually looks like? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Three box body? No
These images are of three-box bodies as described in the lead??? They are both fastbacks. And why is the Ford Model A not necessary? And why two of the same style and from the same part of the world? And why only their behinds, its not an illustration of fastback designs it it. Eddaido (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but you need to direct these to my talkpage :). Discuss it there -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh?? We Are discussing the article aren't we? Eddaido (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted it back, don't worry mate -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. I was thrown off by your "meeting the needs of other users". In common parlance the needs referred to are sexual. Eddaido (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No hahahaha, it happens too much. When I mean that it means I try to edit so that other users are happy with it. But because you weren't, I reverted it back. Merry Christmas -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Notch / hatch / lift / fast backs and hardtops
Notch / hatch / lift / fastbacks and hardtops I agree that these body style names stand on their own. But they do also fit the chosen definition of sedan. Somebody needs to make a decision - in consultation of course and exhibiting consensus. . . Eddaido (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Eddaido. What specific design (correction: specific decision) do you mean? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was really responding to this edit summary of yours "Cars are usually classified as either hatchbacks or sedans, rather than "hatchback sedan"". Aside from that I've made a lot of changes please feel free to disagree with them here if you wish. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting this discussion. I agree that including a mention about sedans with a rear hatch (eg Audi A5, Tesla Model S) is worthwhile. Although a careful distinction needs to be made between sedans that happen to have a rear hatch and the overall body style of a typical hatchback (eg the previous version was claiming the VW Golf, Ford Fiesta, Daewoo LeMans etc to be "two-door hatchback sedans", which I do not believe is correct).
 * Why do you believe that's not right?
 * Regarding the other recent changes, I think it's probably easiest if I make my own and we see where any disagreements exist, rather than trying to explain it. However, I have a couple of question/comments please:
 * - Etymology: Changing "Etymologists report the first recorded use" to "The first known use" (unless the dictionary specifically says that etymologists report that?)
 * ''There are a number of sources (which may in fact be just the one being repeated) so I have cited the most reliable and chosen to make a much less "wooden" statement of it and allows for claims by other people (including the editor that wrote this who did not seem to understand about "recorded") and Georgano etc etc. I don't understand your concern.
 * I Am very concerned that the editor that wrote this section did not understand what he/she was reading - and so made false statements within the text - as you can see from my concealed comments. Waiting on receiving the book cited. In the meantime I think they are dubious but they have the required cites beside them so it would be stupid of me to be Bold.
 * - International terminology: Is the Citation Needed tag just for the Spanish language statements? If so, I think these statements can be removed. Same deal for the sentence about the Rolls Royce Park Ward.
 * You say "these statements (I assume) can be removed" Why?
 * - Standard Styles: The distinction about what is "standard" is subjective. My preference is either all the types together in the variations section, or perhaps split it into current variations and historical ones.
 * No, its not subjective though it may seem so to you. This is an encyclopaedia, it does not just report on current fashions which might be quite different again in a few years time. It needs to try to cover the lot. Close-coupled sedans or saloons are from more than 80 years ago yet an editor has wished to include them.
 * - Close-coupled Saloons: As far as I am aware, the term was only used by UK manufacturers, unless you have references suggesting otherwise?
 * Yes, that's right but why do you tell me this?
 * Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope the answer format is OK, regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eddaido. That's very dedicated of you, buying a book purely to check that it is being cited correctly!
 * Some of us take more trouble than other casual editors.
 * - Hatchback sedans: the Golf, Fiesta, Daewoo etc are most commonly referred to as simply hatchbacks, so I don't think the article should include them in the "hatchback sedans" section
 * Might you be thinking of current models? Did you not notice the Heck photo?
 * - Etymology: Thanks for confirming that the statement "Etymologists report the first recorded use of sedan..." is warranted.
 * - International terminology: The unreferenced sentences in question aren't significant in the history of sedans. Personally, I'm not fussed whether they are removed or remain.
 * OK. They need to be cited
 * - Standard styles: As you say, body styles come and go over time. This is why I think it is better to list all variations in the one section, rather than trying to judge what is current and/or common.
 * The standard styles have been standard for going on for a century. The variations of the 1920s - 1950s were just that. I suspect a lot more variations might be found in the text books.
 * - Close-coupled Saloons: Just thought I should confirm this before making the edit.
 * What edit is this?
 * Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 03:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi 1292Simon. I see you have made a number of edits. Some debatable. Some just wrong. What happened to our discussion? Eddaido (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Eddaido. Yes, I have made several edits. I don't think they go against our discussion (although I hadn't seen your previous your response until afterwards). For example I haven't changed the structure of Standard Styles vs Mid-20th Century Variations, because further discussion is needed. Feel free to change parts you disagree with. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "they go against our discussion" Well, no, they haven't been discussed have they. Shall I just revert them all and we start again edit by edit? Eddaido (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That is up to you. I'll just point out that Wikipedia policy promotes working to improve existing text, rather than blanket reverting (eg WP:BABY). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Eddaido. Regarding this edit that you reverted, could you please describe the specific parts you disagree with? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Simon, currently snowed under when I'm able to get to WP. Didn't know you had responded on 30 Dec. Well, the answer is all those parts er amended by you which I have altered. There's more. That was just your first edit. Eddaido (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Eddaido. Ahh, no worries. Since you seem unwilling to provide specific reasons for reverting it (albeit with a couple of small changes), here are the areas where I think the previous version is an improvement:
 * The Renault is a significant model, so I think a picture of it is worthwhile.
 * This idea leaves me completely mystified. Why a picture in This article (whether or not it was "significant" - would it have significance enough to go into a Renault article?)
 * To show readers what the first car that is now considered a sedan looks like. If there are refs supporting that the honour actually belongs to a different car, I support it being changed.
 * Then I should explain further. That picture is Not a picture of the car under discussion. Am I wrong?
 * You are right, that image is irrelevant. Sorry, my research of the Voiturette types was incorrect. Here is the image I would like to add to the section: Type B
 * That would be fine if it replaced the image of the Cadillac (which I seem to remember was built for one of the executives for his own use) and was not a production model). The article about the Renault claims this is the first of its kind, ever. I note that WP Fr. sees no need for any "proof" for their statement.
 * Am I right in thinking the image is there to show there were cars with rigid roofs long before sedans were called sedans? Eddaido (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the image is to show which car the text "There is a claim that the body of a particular 1899 Renault Voiturette Type B is the first vehicle considered to be a sedan[20][21]" is referring to. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "There were also cars with sedan characteristics prior to the term itself being used." is a clearer explanation of the pre-1912 situation.
 * But doesn't every closed car have "sedan characteristics"? There seems to me to be no purpose in making this statement. So surely it should be scrapped.
 * Yes, that sentance probably just adds unnecessary confusion.
 * The conflict about the Speedwell is easier to understand if it is mentioned straight after the Studebaker text. Also, I don't see why the author of the source needs mentioning.
 * You or was it someone else have listed "other early cars . . . begins by naming a limousine! OK, that's a sedan with a division but why mention it!, same with the Renault (!!) and then a two-door saloon which I seem to remember you class as a coupé. Why are you muddying the water? Anyway I felt Georgano's opinion - he is oft quoted in Wiki articles about old cars - is important enough for him to be named. Placed where it is it kind of rounds up the muddied water bit. I find the muddy bit so puzzling I just left it in case there was a chance for an interpretation later which is, I suppose, now. Please may I know why those vehicles are mentioned. This muddying list is just as perplexing to me as the wish to include the Renault image
 * Someone else added them, I merely did some reference formatting. Thanks for your research about the limousine confusion, that makes a lot more sense now.


 * "The same American dictionary" is duplicating part of the Definition section. Also I see no reason to discuss the source itself instead of referring to it.
 * The second part is answered immediately above. Its no duplication with the second mention is it?
 * Regarding the naming of Georgano and the New Oxford dictionary, as per WP:INTEXT it can be misleading to use in-text attribution for facts that are not disputed or specific to the source. A historical definition would be useful for the etymology section, but I do not believe that a definition from a 2011 dictionary is relevant here. Yes, I now agree that the duplication isn't a big deal. So if you don't agree with using the source to state that sedan is a North American term, I think that moving the reference to the Definition section would be ok.
 * Also, I do not agree with the recent renaming of the section to "The name sedan". The section name should be Etymology, as this is the technical description which is used in many articles.
 * (a)Surely this is a fact under dispute, the text says so, that's what these few sentences are about. (b) see under 'the muddy section' below.
 * Please see the section below.


 * Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see my responses above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise and thanks, where I have misunderstood your intent please tell me, Eddaido (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry for my delay responding, and thanks for not reverting my recent edit in the meantime. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The clear as mud name derivation section
I see it has been there since 2010, put there by an ip. With a copy of the (very big) book beside me my guess is that the ip went and looked for any pictures of early closed cars and then, I think, made a fool of her/himself. A possible explanation is that the ip address is in Germany and the page numbers are well away from those in the copy I have and the editor may have been using a German translation of Georgano's book and — as we all now know most sedans are currently known as limousines in Germany. Trouble is these limousines are limousines and not sedans. If you look at the ip's previous edits to the same article you can get the impression that the editor was employing a not very wide or deep knowledge of the subject. Eddaido (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For simplicity I have copied and pasted from Oxford English Dictionary online through a link provided to members by my local library — ''Sedan, noun. "Etymology: Of obscure etymology.
 * The conjecture (? first in Johnson, 1773) connecting the word with the name of Sedan, a town of NE. France, has nothing to support it, and seems unlikely. In 1634 the exclusive right of supplying ‘covered chairs’ was granted to Sir Sanders Duncombe; the word sedan does not occur in the grant, but the index to the patents of the year has ‘covered chairs (called sedans)’. The statement of Evelyn, that Duncombe brought the sedan from Naples may be correct, as the thing had long been in use in Italy (compare Italian seggietta in Florio, 1598). It is therefore natural to suppose that the word might be from some South Italian derivative of Italian sede (Latin sēdēs) seat, sedere to sit; but there seems to be no trustworthy evidence of the existence in Italian dialects of any form from which the English word could be derived."''


 * New Oxford American Dictionary (3 ed.) provided by WP Oxford Dictionaries Online  "– origin perhaps an alteration of an Italian dialect word, based on Latin sella '‘ saddle’ ', from sedere '‘ sit’ '.


 * These statements attempt to provide an authoritative etymology for the word sedan but agree they cannot. We can't call our WP paragraph by the same name. Maybe an attempted etymology? So, why not just the best explanation we can find of how this name came to be used for a particular type of body for a car?

Eddaido (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the etymology is unclear/disputed. However it is the topic of the section, so I think the section should be named as such, regardless of whether there is a definitive conclusion or not. Thanks for sharing your research above. Those definitions would be helpful in expanding this section. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree. Please redraft the section if you wish and then we can discuss the matter further. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there might be a misunderstanding about my previous reply. It is purely about the name of the section. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made some changes to that section and I'd be pleased to hear your thoughts of them. Eddaido (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I've made some follow-up changes: - Moving the dictionary definition to flow into the discussion about why the Speedwell is the first sedan - Removing "unsubtanciated" claims from the Renault statement, which is clearly referenced There are also several wording changes, which are not intended to change any meanings. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look later. Eddaido (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Move
Move this to sedan (car). Car is used far more than automobile and is the page Car, not "automobile". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3FB0:300:BC36:37BA:1D93:59CB (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

US (and to a lesser extent UK) centric article
I have added a globalisation template as at present this article primarily covers the history of these types of cars in the US with a small amount of information about the UK and a couple of other wealthy, mostly Anglophone nations added in. Given the ongoing greater popularity of saloon cars in non-Anglophone markets this seems especially relevant. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Sedan(car)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sedan(car) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Sedan in German
In Germany a Sedan normaly called a "Stufenheck" means directly translatet step-back or stage-back. But in official vehicle papers a sedan always named as Limosine. In colloquial a Limousine is more a big sedan or stretch limosine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.207.15 (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)