Talk:Side-view mirror

Archives of past discussion
Archive 1

Merger proposal
I propose that Objects in mirror are closer than they appear be redirected here, because its relevant content is covered and supported here. The content unrelated to side mirrors at Objects in mirror are closer than they appear is an arguably unencyclopædic cruft list per WP:IPC. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am for keeping them separate. If the only context was mirrors, I would agree. But someone who runs across this as the title of a ballet, or a law review article, would be rather surprised to be re-directed to wing mirror This is especially true since the mirror in question is often called a 'side mirror' in some countries.  Many folks, at least in the US, would have no idea what a wing mirror is or why they were directed there.


 * Also, per the 'cruft' argument, there is a good chance that someone (especially non-native English speakers) could learn of this phrase from the reference alone, and be tempted to seek out more info about it. That's one of the reasons for inclusion.  LouScheffer (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no confusion amongst those where terms like "side mirror", "door mirror", or "side-view mirror"; take a look at the first sentence of Wing mirror. I can see your point regarding the non-mirror uses of the phrase; we can deal later with whether some of the items in that list might not belong in a list on Wikipedia. I propose a compromise: leave Objects in mirror are closer than they appear, and pare down its mirror-related content to a sentence or two, sufficient to inform readers as to the mirror-related origin of the phrase, with a pointer to the mirror-related content using


 * Otherwise we are doing duplicative development. The mirror content at Wing mirror is of better quality (and more improvements are pending); for example, the coverage over there refers to the US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its regulations, which regulate only commercial vehicles. The correct reference is to the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its regulations, which cover all vehicles in the USA. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems fine to me. I made the changes to Objects in mirror are closer than they appear.  Incidentally, most of the links to the official department of transportion documents for this subject are broken (true of both articles).  They must have been OK fairly recently since the Google cache still shows the correct contents.   LouScheffer (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning
""Warnings of this nature are not required in Europe, where the proliferation of languages would make it difficult to implement a universally-comprehensible warning""

This is nonsense. Fact is that in Europe laws re. responsibilities are more rational than US. One is not obliged to warn on/about everything. A driver has the responsibility to read the manual and switch on brains when starting the motor of a car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.154.131.121 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm…you may personally hold that philosophical opinion to be self-evident "fact", but that is not sufficient to make it so, no matter how fervently I may agree with you. This is an encyclopædia, not a discussion forum, so provide a reliable source for your assertion and then it'll merit consideration for inclusion in the article. True, the explanation presently in the article lacks a citation, but it stands to factual reason and is most assuredly not "nonsense" that the many different languages spoken just in the European Community alone, not to mention throughout the world outside Europe where European car regulations are used, make a textual warning of this nature impracticable -- without regard to any philosophical opinions (or rants) about the nature of driver responsibility. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 19:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

""Warnings of this nature are not required in Europe, where the proliferation of languages would make it difficult to implement a universally-comprehensible warning"" This is simply incorrect, as for instance every ingredient list for foods in EU has to be given in the language of the country they are sold in. Keeping it branch-related, cars sold in Sweden will have a label about unleaded petrol printed in Swedish, while it for obvious reasons is written in German in Germany. This means that the burden of proof for inclusion should lay with the claim that languages is the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.225.216.15 (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Vehicles are motile. Boxes of crackers and cans of soda generally aren't. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 06:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

""Warnings of this nature are not required in Europe, where the proliferation of languages would make it difficult to implement a universally-comprehensible warning""

I agree this is incorrect but not due to languages. The UN ECE R46 that is in effect in most of the world doesn't require it. This is not European, it is a United Nations document. The only areas that require a warning that I'm aware of are Gulf countries and USA/Canada. Mexico also accepts UN ECE for outer mirror regulation.