Talk:Tell-tale (automotive)

AfD?
Why has this been nominated as nonsense? "Idiot light" is a valid term that is regularly used in automobile and other terminology.  S t e a l t h F o x  20:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's certainly neither nonsense nor spam. I could see an AfD for it being only a dictdef, though. But not speedy. You can call me Al 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake folks, good thing I was quickly corrected. Scoo 12:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge
I'm not sure this should be merged with "Check Engine" Light, as it is just one example of an idiot light. It would be useful to have a "see also" link to it though.  S t e a l t h F o x  00:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Check Engine" Light is NOT synonymous w/ idiot light, as idiot lights indicate a massive system failure which generally will necessitate shutting down the vehicle and having it towed, whereas a "Check Engine" Light typically works as an early warning system, usually for a non-essential part, which has tripped a "trouble code" in the computer. An "idiot light" always means "car's broke, pull over before it's FUBAR." Conversely, "Check Engine" Light usually means, "get your car looked at soon."

Citation for popular belief
I'm not sure what kind of a citation is needed for the "The "idiot" factor refers to the popular belief that the car maker decided that most drivers lack the technical expertise to properly understand gauges" line. Is it supposed to be a quote by a motor company? I doubt it's possible to find it. NetHunter (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who's lived in the world for a while has noticed that people are, generally, stupid. More charitably, we all live complex and busy lives and may not notice that the pointer on the gauge that is usually "over there" is now "over THERE" indicating that we're about to be stranded during a blizzard somewhere outside of Tisdale, Saskatchewan. (People still run out of gas all the time because they don't *look* at gas gauges, which is why even gas gauges have idiot lights on them.) I don't think this needs a special citation, but then, Wikipedia doesn't work on common sense. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Article title
This article is not correctly titled. The term "idiot light" is certainly common enough to warrant discussion within the article, but it is an informal term. The formal term for these lights is telltale or tell-tale, as can be seen in every relevant automotive technical regulation. See for example ECE Regulation 48, which governs the installation of lighting equipment on vehicles worldwide except in the US and Canada, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, which governs vehicle controls and displays in the US, and Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101, which regulates vehicle controls and displays in Canada. Under the rubric of the formal title, there is a great deal of room for this article to be expanded and improved. We can go into detail on the various kinds of telltales (ECE R48 lists two different categories, for example), the different indications provided, their regulated appearance, the ISO symbols used on them, etc. Unless anyone can present a well-backed argument for keeping the title as is, I propose to change it to Telltale (automotive) with appropriate redirects and dab entries for the hyphenated variant. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 18:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is in fact correctly titled. Only people serving on standards committees call these "telltales" or "indicators", both of which are much more general terms subsuming flag indicators, etc. A Google Books sniff test gives a thousand hits for "idiot light", which come  up in automotive contexts.  "Tell-tale" has over 150,000 hits, generally not to do with automobiles.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have Traffic collision even though nobody says that phrase in everyday, casual speech. People say car crash or auto accident. Nevertheless, the article is titled Traffic collision because that is the formal term. Likewise, see the title discussion for Headlamp. Headlight is the more colloquially-common term, but headlamp is the formal term for the subject of the article, and so that is its title. It looks as if either of us might be able to build a case based on WP:TITLE, which says articles should be titled with the common name of the subject of the article. That seems to be the crux of your position. However, WP:TITLE defines "common" rather more narrowly than it looks like you might be defining it. It also says search engines such as Google can be used to see what reliable sources call the subject of the article. It does not support a simple "X many hits on Google for what I want, versus only Y many hits on Google for what you want" comparison as a basis for deciding questions of article title. Moreover, and this looks important, it says to observe the usage of major international organizations (…) major scientific bodies and scientific journals when picking an article title. I have already demonstrated that major international organizations (the U.N. would seem to count as such) use tell-tale. Here and here are evidence that scientific bodies and journals use the telltale term. Here and here and here and here is evidence that the telltale term is used in books and magazines intended for popular consumption. Here is evidence that the telltale terminology is used in the automotive industry, and I believe that does a fairly good job of supporting my case for Telltale (automotive) as the title for this article. Let's see what other voices might pipe up. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This won't be the first time a Wikipedia policy has been clearly wrong. I look forward to any other editors contributing to this discussion.  I think it's absurd to call something by a formal term that is un-recognized in common use; we have "cat" at "cat", not at "felis catus" which is the formal binomial name for the animal. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that cat vs. felis catus is analogous to this present situation. I'm also a little troubled by your less-than-coöperative tone ("absurd", "clearly wrong", etc. here in this discussion; "the great God policy" in your edit summary). It really doesn't help move the ball down the field; all it can do is antagonise. Could we please have a cuppa tea and lower our voices a couple notches? Thanks. Now, back to the topic at hand: it bears considering that the present title, Idiot light, has generated ongoing substantial controversy as can be seen here on the talk page. A more encyclopædic title—one would not see an article on "Idiot light" in the Britannica, but one might well see one on Telltale (automotive)—may serve to reduce this controversy on a long-term basis, which can only help the article. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, the above suggested name should be 'Tell-tale (automotive)', given that there is an existing article for Tell-tale, and it would be best to maintain a common naming consistency. I'm assuming, of course, that there's enough material for this article to justify it being separate from the standalone article. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Substitution of a clear direct term by a polysyllabic circumlocution that requires parenthetical disambiguation is entirely within the mealy-mouthed tradition of Wikipedia editorial practice. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * TechnoSymbiosis, thanks for your contribution. I had not considered that idiot light might be less common (or flatly unused) outside America. That seems to add weight to Telltale (automotive).


 * Wtshymanski, in looking at your talk page, it seems to me you have lately been getting in a fair number of squabbles. When I found myself in that position about a year ago, I took a break from editing. Lasted most of a year! I'm not necessarily suggesting you should go away, but you seem sick to death of Wikipedia so I am asking you to give that some thought and see if you can figure out a way to be less sour and angry. I am also renewing my offer of a cup of tea and asking you to please participate in this discussion based on the evidence. Your ranting and your sarcastic edit summaries are not helping. It looks like your objection boils down to "I don't like it, which is certainly your prerogative but is not a valid basis for obstruction of an effort to bring an article closer to compliance with Wikipedia tenets and protocols. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we at least preserve a redirect from "idiot light" for the benefit of those not serving on ISO standards committees? It's important that the Wikipedia use the most pompous possible phrasing so that unwary readers respect the tremendous scholarship and authority of Wikipedia editors. Or not. Now I'm being saracastic again. One mustn't criticize the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We already have an article on Tell-tale, and these devices are known in a number of books, magazines and manuals around the world as telltales. It makes sense to keep the main article title consistent with related articles. If there wasn't enough detail to justify its own article I'd have even suggested it be merged with Tell-tale, since they both talk about the same things. As it is, I did recommend keeping a redirect from 'Idiot Light' and suggested it be included in the opening sentence of the lede as an alternative bolded term. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course there'll be a redirect! That's what redirects are for, and one is automagically created from the old name when an article is given a new one. Anybody entering "idiot light" in the searchbox (or clicking an existing link in another article that points at Idiot light) will immediately arrive at the article. And yes, idiot light will need to be presented within the first few words of the article as an alternate popular term. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 05:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I fully support renaming this article, this seems an obvious situation where a simple redirect to the correct term would fix it right up. in the entire decade+ using wikipedia, I can't think of 1 other time where I felt the article was actually dumbing down a subject. And arguing that NO ONE other then people who work for standards bodes use the term indicators......like really, are you serious with that? That drips of ignorance. Ive never seen a more snarky, personal talk page and im genuinely stunned at how childish and unprofessional MOST of the comments are, I mean seriously, re read them and tell me im wrong. 47.33.49.159 (talk)dude —Preceding undated comment added 04:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge content from MIL
I have brought the content from Malfunction indicator lamp to this article and augmented it; I propose we officially merge and redirect that article to this one. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 10:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not. We didn't in 2006. If anything the MIL article should be merged with OBD, if we have one. All MILs are idiot lights, but not all idiot lights are MILs. There's enough to write about the MIL that it doesn't need to be added here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that seems reasonable -- we can have brief discussion of MILs here and point to the main article, whether or not that article gets merged with On-board diagnostics (which is very badly out of date; it appears to stop at OBD-II!). —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Mush
Lovely. We've mushed together "idiot light" ( a light that comes on to tell you something has gone wrong, that you didn't notice from reading a gauge) and what I would call "pilot light" (oh, look, the radio is getting stereo FM!). Thus, in this very article, we've re-enacted the cognitive failure that made idiot lights necessary. Let's write lots and lots of words instead. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well…no. We haven't set up any cognitive failure. Your own personal nomenclature of "pilot light" is a fairly common informal one, not in formal or official use. Fact is, "Tell-tale" is an umbrella term that covers various kinds of indicators. Trouble indicators ("idiot lights"), circuit-closed indicators, system-operating indicators, etc. We're working to build this article to describe that reality. Hope you'll join in the effort rather than grousing. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 00:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, you should tell the IEEE that they're making stuff up again; they define both "pilot light" and (redundantly) "pilot lamp" in IEEE Std. 100. But let's continue to mush everything together and use lots of words to describe what may, or may not,e.g., be indicated by the applying of power to the illumination of a light bulb or/and LED and/or the lack of illumination of the aforementioned luminous artifact and/or artefact. "Idiot light" was at least nicely confined to the context of auto dashboards; "telltale" overgeneralizes. In spite of that overgeneralization, I've yet to see a "tell-tale" or "telltale" listed that isn't an idiot light, except for the list of pilot lights. And note again that the article is a trainspotters collection of "Hey, neat places I've seen lights!" without the slightest notion of history, background or science behind it all.   Discuss the difference between Joe Pilot saying "Oh, look, the exhaust temperature is up 75 degrees, I'd better lean out the mixture" and Sally Homemaker driving the kids from soccer practice to music lessons who just wants to know if she should mention it at the next dealer service or pull over and call AAA. Why do we have idiot lights and not gauges? Not one Wikipedia editor knows. But that's ok.  I'm currently working on fixing a copyright violation that no one spotted in 9 years.  Hint - if it reads well on Wikipedia, check to see if was plagiarized. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Modify your tone. When you are ready to have a grownup conversation without the sarcasm and snark, we can talk about apposite things like the IEEE's nomenclature being irrelevant to this automotive article, and we can draw up lists of tell-tales that aren't idiot lights. Until then, we'd be stuck discussing the difference between productive activities like working coöperatively to improve an article vs. unproductive activities like bitching and moaning on the talk page, and that's not a conversation I feel like putting energy into with you. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 05:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to "Idiot light"
This page has been boldly moved to "Idiot light", but I feel that it is still a fairly disputed change. Personally, I believe "idiot light" to be a fairly informal term, as others have stated above, and one that does not necessarily refer to all tell-tale indicators (the article itself states that the term arose as a disparaging comment by auto technicians on the replacement of gauges with lights; as a result, it would therefore not apply to, for instance, indicators that inform on the type of headlights currently active). This would mean that it is not the most suitable host for the article, although still worthy of being covered.

I'm not going to revert the move just yet, but I would like a further test of consensus on this (especially as previous discussions appear to have skewed against "Idiot light" as the main name for the page). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

LCD screen as replacement for idiot lights
The most recent car I've purchased has a lot of "idiot light" functions displaced by an LCD display in the middle of the dashboard, which for example replaces a warning that you're about to hit the car in front of you with the text "Brake!" on a red background that you can read during the collision. Something scholarly on this would be very interesting to read. We have zilch on the human factors associated with idiot lights, which would be of much more encyclopediac value than a recitation of all the lights on the dashboard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)