Talk:Car-free movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in the past. See /deletion for the discussion archive.

---

[edit] Carfree versus car-free

Based on a suggestion, I have decided to replace all instances of "carfree" with "car-free", wich conforms to the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms recommendation. "Carfree" is certainly a neologism, whereas car-free is simply hyphinated words describing the movement. The word "carfree" should only be used for direct quotes from other sites (please site!) and in the names of organizations. Az7997 19:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor states, below: In WP, "Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context." This certainly represents the carfree concept and philosophy. There are 420,000 hits on Yahoo for "carfree", so a couple of people on a wiki talk page is not enough to alter the name, even if they were talking about carfree to car-free.

I will refrain from changing everything back to car-free to prevent an edit war, but I think the issue needs to be decided on this discussion page.

You are not going to change the world's usage of the term by having a couple of people talk about it here, especially where the article title already has one particular slant. Why not raise the subject on groups.yahoo.com/carfree or groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/ ? There you will be able to garner the attention of not one or two, but over 100 people. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been unable to find the WP reference you site above, about the usefulness of neologisms in WP. Please link to direct quotes. Until shown otherwise, I stand by the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms recommendation.

neologism. You haven't established that 'carfree' is a neologism. Indeed, 'car-free' would have the same status, hyphen or not.

The original edit was a suggestion brought up on the Talk:List of carfree places page, due to the ease of confusing the words "carfree" and "carefree".

One anonymous person brought it up, and you replied. That does not justify making unilateral changes. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, even many of the WP page titles go back and forth between car-free and carfree.

I've seen nothing of significance that determines this to be problematic. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As for use, a Google search for the phrases "carfree", "car-free", and "car free" quickly uncovers instances where the phrases are used interchangeably. I think this indicates that there is no consensus within the movement on how to spell this word/phrase, yet another problem with neologisms.

Try again. Enter 'carfree" on Yahoo and see what you get back. You'll find no mass returns of car-free or car free. On the other hand, if you use car-free, you'll get all kinds of bogus returns that have nothing to do with the movement, which is a problem.

Indeed, even sites like [www.carfree.com carfree.com] and [www.worldcarfree.net worldcarfree.net] use both spellings.

You'll find that those sites use carfree over 95% of the time, and the other percentage is the occassional letter or article from another site or link to another site that uses car-free.

(Side note: please do not simply site the number of results a search engine returns for a query, as "carfree" could be returned for typos of "carefree", and "car free" could be a sentence fragment on an auto give-away. Use is more important than number of hits.)

Au contraire, a search on 'carfree' shows how vastly widespread the use is, which is the crux of this entire conversation. I cannot and will not purposefully ignore evidence about the matter at hand. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I therefore recommend we stick to car-free

"We" are not currently at an established use of only "car-free", which you seem to be attempting to project.

until a secondary sources , such a book or paper about the term, can be found to settles the dispute.Az7997 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And I recommend that we stick with the current approach until a secondary source can be found to support the exclusive use of 'car-free'. Skyemoor 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll reframe this meandering debate. The page Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms states "neologisms generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Because neither "carfree" nor "car-free" return any definitions on [www.dictionary.com dictionary.com], I think this wiki style page should be used as the authoritative guide for the debate. However, the section entitled "articles on neologisms" justifies using such a new word, if it is the subject of the page. (It would be hard to talk about anything having to do with the movement without using the phrase "car-free"!)

It then comes down to a matter of spelling. There is still debate on the Talk:E-mail page on whether e-mail or email is correct, so we certainly won't solve the spelling issue on this one rarely used word. So, I did a brief survey to see which is used more. On a random [www.carfree.com carfree.com] page I chose, there were 7 instances of "carfree" and 1 of "car-free". On a random [www.carbusters.org carbusters.org] page, I found 4 of "carfree" and none of "car-free". Finally, I looked for books (using either spelling) and found the title Carfree Cities by JH Crawford, and a few books that use it only in their blurbs. Unfortunately, I have not yet found a definition of "car free" in Crawford, so it can't be considered a secondary refrence. However, Crawford also consistantly uses "carfree", so that seems to be the convention.

I revise my suggestion to be that the titles of all the related pages use "carfree", and a few important pages (such as the carfree movement page) mentioning that the term is also commonly used as "car-free" and "car free". I also recommend that we generally stick to "carfree" in the bodies of the articles when possible.Az7997 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend polling key persons, such as Eric Britton, J.H. Crawford, etc to see what their thoughts are. This page is one place for the discussion, but I would not consider it authoritative. Just as e-mail and email can co-exist, you may find out that carfree and car-free can as well. Skyemoor 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is Eric Britton, and by what virtue is he a key person? Crawford's (or at least his/her editor's) preference is clear. No need for polling if literature exists. Az7997 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with switching to "carfree", and I do think they can coexist. As for numbers, they appear to be roughly similar. I tried added "living" to the google search to get rid of the irrelevant hits, and I got

"carfree living" OR "living carfree" : 620

"car-free living" OR "living car-free" : 22,900

To me this says that they're about on par, and one usage certainly shouldn't trump all instances. bikeable (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Your upper line starts with "car-free living" and ends "living carfree". Shouldn't it be "carfree living"?Az7997

You're right, sorry. I corrected the numbers above, which interestingly give much more support for "car-free"... although this may just point to a differential use of "car-free" as an adverb. bikeable (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but I value words printed on paper more highly. Crawford's text is the only book I've found either way. However, an ISI search of journals is also interesting.

carfree returns 2 hits

car-free returns 3 hits

I may look into the literature for secondary sources, but they may not exist yet. Even scholars appear to go both ways!Az7997 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology: anti-car organizations

In Feb 2006, a discussion took place as of the merit of the term "car-free" in the movement's name. This discussion in archived, below. I believe the consensus was that the term car-free, as opposed to anti-car, was what the movement chose for itself and therefore the proper title. Clearly, the name itself does not subscribe to the NPOV, but much the same could be said about the pro-choice and pro-life sides of the abortion issue. The article should subscribe to NPOV, but the name of the movement need not. Az7997 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

/"Anti-car organization" discussion

The discussion you cited does not come out in favor of car-free vs. carfree, it is about anti-car vs. carfree. And there is extensive referral to "carfree" on that page, more than car-free. In WP, "Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context." This certainly represents the carfree concept and philosophy. There are 420,000 hits on Yahoo for "carfree", so a couple of people on a wiki talk page is not enough to alter the name, even if they were talking about carfree to car-free. Skyemoor 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the archived discussion has nothing to do with whether or not to hyphenate car-free in the article. I just happen to be the same person who started the discussion on hyphenation and also who archived the long expositions about anti-car organizations. I will respond to your post about hyphenation under that sub-heading. Az7997 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)