Jump to content

Talk:Carpool

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seperate Sections?

[edit]

Could we have seperate sections for Benefits / Limitations / Innovative concepts around the world etc.? Also a flow diagram of how some of the best carpool systems work and their best practices would be useful? --Ruzbehraja (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


wrong title

[edit]

Carpooling (and van pooling, bus pooling, hitchhiking, digit hitchhiking et all) are all sub-classes of what we call ride-sharing. It would be important for the WP as a first source of reference for many to get this right. Can someone here take care of this? (I for the moment have a bit of a time problem. Sorry.) ericbritton 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many links?

[edit]

Okay, the number of commercial links added to this article is beginning to bug me. At what point is a link a necessary external link that provides information, and at what point is it merely a commercial spamlink? I'm really tempted to just remove all the links that are just carpool organising web sites. I think only web sites that provide information on car pooling or provide links to various carpooling web sites should be added. What do you guys think? --Deathphoenix 13:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. . I also find it sad that there so many ridesharing websites on the internet, actually. Why is there not one major one. Now you just have to look everywhere to find a ride. But lets start with cutting them down here. Daniel, nologin.
Be my guest. This page is a carpool spamlink magnet. — brighterorange (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I removed all the spamlinks in the following two edits. I think the link that remains is informative and provides extra information. Also, this remaining link also provides links to the various carpooling (or ride-sharing), so that makes spamlinks even more superfluous. Now we have a clean slate with which to filter future spamlinks. Thanks for your feedback. --Deathphoenix 21:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take issue with due respect to this decision. In the first place, the site as it stands is still far too "lite" to capture the complexity and the implications of what is out there. If you have the necessary deep knowledge of the subject (after all this is an encyclopedia and this is a worthy entry on a not so simple topic that has considerable technical, institutional and historical content, and which moreover has very different histories in different parts of the planet) you will appreciate that while we have a fairly good first swipe here there is still some way to go. And I hope to be able to lend a hand in this over the coming week when my time permits.

As to the “unnecessary links” may ask your permission to pop most of them back in. Some, not all, really will help the interested reader to develop a more sophisticated feel for this topic – and if you bear in mind that journalist, researchers, students, policy wonks and interested citizens are our readers here, you will let me do this, at least until such time that we have a full and fully bullet proof entry.

PS. Why is this just a magnet for idiotic remarks and graffiti? I thought we were as of late all supposed to sign in and be identified before being permitted to make entries? Is that incorrect? ericbritton 22:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I took the liberty of moving your comments to a seperate section, as I was confused as to who made what comment) The problem is that the links are commercial links that don't provide information about carpooling that is a reference for the Carpooling article. Take a look at some of the external links that we removed. A lot of them were commercial or far too specific to be useful. Some of them weren't even carpooling sites at all. Please note that according to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a repository for commercial links, and leaving the links in gives some sites a false "Google Rank" push. The one link we left in during the link-purge provides a good definition of carpooling, and it provides links to a few sample carpool sites. If you have any non-commercial links to information on carpooling (ie, sites that provide information on carpooling, not merely a carpooling site to help set up a car pool), those would be appropriate. --Deathphoenix 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) P.S., Just to let you know, I don't think a link to the Google search was really necessary, so I removed it. If you disagree, please let me know, and why. --Deathphoenix 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not every link removed belonged to a commercial ride-sharing enterprise. Please use discretion before removing every link. SensibleAmerican 06:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this field for a long time, and I really do think that links to a handful of leading current projects which together pretty much define the state of the art would be very useful to our readers. Maybe one per leading innovating coutnry. I can supply these if you think it might be useful. To get a feel for this I invite you to check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldCarShare/links/_B__font_s_000953539529/ ericbritton 16:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link that DeathPhoenix removed is of a non-profit student organization that provides designated driving services who's name is carpool. This link seems to be extremely notable and it is definitely not commercial spam. To Eric Britton's statement, I agree that having some sources of how carpooling works in other countries would be extremely beneficial if it can be done in a neutral fashion. How do you propose that we do this? SighSighSigh 05:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it's non-profit or not. Does the link provide more information that cannot otherwise be included in the article? I think the link that is in this article is a good example of appropriate external links: not a web site that provides a carpool service (or a service that greatly resembles a carpool), but a site that provides information on what carpooling is. It doesn't matter whether the link is to a commercial site or a non-profit site: links to specific carpool services don't need to be linked here. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a previously uninvolved editor asked to comment based on this being raised on WP:AN I'm not seeing the A&M link as so significant that it needs to stay in contravention to our linkspam policy. (does the association have its own article here? if not, it may not be notable as an association) Some discussion of why it is might be good. The reverting of edits back to an older version should stop till consensus has been reached. I'd prefer to see discussion and no edit warring voluntarily rather than the article being protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lar (talk • contribs) .

Again, I was previously uninvolved, but saw this on the administrators' noticeboard as well. I agree with DeathPhoenix and Lar that the link is not necessary. It is indeed a carpool program, but many, many universities provide a similar type of service whereby students can call for a ride if they need it. Whether the site is for a for-profit or non-profit agency is irrelevant; we should instead think about its contribution to the article. The link's contribution, in my opinion, is minimal as it refers to merely one of many ordinary carpool programs. -- joturner 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a link to a research paper on dynamic ridesharing which studies present and future ridesharing service, incl. IPR issues and possible service introduction options -- 64hardy 14:21, 11 oct 2007 (UTC) 192.100.130.8 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should add back the commercial links here. Most carpooling and ridesharing services tend to be in local markets so it's not helpful when consumers can't find any links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.68.4 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous lawsuits of America

[edit]

Judge makes clear a fetus is not a passenger for carpooling: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/11/fetus.carpool.ap/index.html 195.70.32.136 08:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed copyvio content from Answers.com

[edit]

I removed copyvio content taken from Answers.com. Their content is copyrighted, so shouldn't be used here. --Deathphoenix 02:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers.com is a mirror site of Wikipedia. SensibleAmerican 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High cost of labour?

[edit]

High cost of labour is mentioned as one of the disadvantages, but there isn't any labour cost, is there? I thought that was actually the big advantage of carpooling over public transportation. In public transportation ther is always one occupant who doesn't want to go to whatever the destination is, who needs to be paid for his service (the driver, in case you hadn't guessed :) ). But with carpooling the driver also wants to go there, so doesn't need to get paid for it. All one pays for is the use of the car. And with, say, taxis, the driver constitutes almost all of the cost (that's why taxis are always expensive brandnew cars - even then that is just a tiny bit of the cost, so they might as well). Or do I seriously misunderstand something here? DirkvdM 18:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer

[edit]

Just in case what I did was wrong, I edited the protected page of an article in which I am under dispute, but it was to make a minor spelling and grammar change here. Feel free to revert if what I did was against policy. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

internet travelsharing

[edit]

is there an article which deals with internet ridesharing or does that belong here in this article?Brallan 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of one but it would be a good idea. The problem, as seen in the earlier discussion about links, is that it's hard to talk about this in detail without referencing specific carpooling websites (I run one of them). I'm not so familiar with wikipedia that I know the appropriate way to discuss this but it seems a shame to remove all mention of a vibrant field with a lot of very interesting work. In the article on web portals at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Web_portal, the people who have contributed, surely a high-powered bunch, are not shy about naming names. Similarly, this article on semiconductor manufacturing names names: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Semiconductor_fabrication. CRM software has a table of market leaders: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Customer_relationship_management. Or this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Online_dating_service, which also discusses the market structure. So how about we stop being so coy and start including the information that people are really interested in? 64.107.254.46 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carpooling around the world

[edit]

I copied the out the list from the Share taxi site, which I thought looked good. The postition didn't come out quite right and of course we need more people to contribute their local terms.

Unless you can come up with a better text, kindly leave something in (This is the third time I tried and I'm paying by the minute over here!) Carpooling is known by many different names around the world and not everyone might suspect their HR department arranges it or their works council. We were sure glad sometimes to find out eventually. (Interns and students aren't swimming in money, as you know. Someone else might find this info useful.)

Again, please explain why the text isn't A: wholly redundant, B: original research, and C: necessary. Unless foreign language terminology is relevant to the etymology of the English language word, mention is generally limited to the Wikipedia:Interlanguage, per the edit summary on my first revert. If you'd like to explore the etymology of various English-language terms on the En wiki, great, but the chart with more than a half-dozen blank entries and the conversion of a http link to "htp" are hardly productive. Also, again, please avoid adding uncited original research to this encyclopedia, especially to an article already struggling with a lack of citations and clearly sourced assertions of notability and relevance, although that could plainly be added. MrZaiustalk 04:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought this was supposed to deal with the "concept" of carpooling rather than the linguistics!!! And as a concept it does work differently elsewhere. Sorry you found practicably applicable information offensive to the purpose you see in the site. HOV lanes I've so far only encountered in the US. But the Germans, Dutch and Danish are happily "carpooling" without. Albeit under different names. Plus in Europe it's not just done for commutes but also for travel. But apparently your readers should rather find all that out by themselves. Keep your verrrry relevant page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.252.153 (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Interlanguage links are standard operating procedure throughout the wiki. Please limit your discussion of foreign language topics to those that have a clear relevance outside of that language/in the English-language wiki. The statement "HOV lanes I've so far only encountered in the US" raises issues with Wikipedia:Original research. Another editor asserted, with the more general language, that the HOV lanes may or may not be used in other countries as well. To remove that assertion would be kosher, barring a source, but to replace it with the implicit assertion that they are wholly and completely limited to the United States raises the same issue. MrZaiustalk 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC) PS: A quick google search for "carpool lane canada" turns up several results, including High-occupancy_vehicle_lane#The_Toronto.2C_Canada_400-Series_Highways_HOV_Lane_Network_Project[reply]

Wrong definition

[edit]

I believe there is a major difference between car pool and ride share:

A carpool normally contains people to go to THE SAME place e.g. work or university and they go regularily in one car. But usually each time they go, there are the same people but this week I drive, next week you drive. Usually no money exchange.

A ride share normally is ONE driver who goes to different places and sells free seats in his car. Here passengers change regularly and pay a to-be-determined price.

Therefore I propose that two articles are created. One called carpool and one ride share. In both cases they need major rework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demmelhuber (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car pool and Ride share, they are almost same. They are both sharing car and saving cost. The difference between them is carpool is repeating share and ride share is one time single or round trip. That is why most websites serving this purpose are called themselves ride share website or carpool website. No matter what they call themselves, they serve both one time share or long term repeating share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuleinj (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

ref : [(wiki fr)Covoiturage] --Cartedd (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

[edit]

I removed a section that was a blatant advertisement for a website called Ridespring.com. 68.189.243.117 (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Has anyone noticed that Dagwood, of the Blondie comic strip, commutes to work regularly by carpool? I wonder what other instances of carpooling in popular culture can be found out there. 68.32.48.221 (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Car Pools

[edit]

Could somebody direct me to the article on automobiles with built-in aquatic recreation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.137.148 (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carpool article not easily accessible for UK users

[edit]

In the UK the term car-sharing is used instead of car pooling. I have produced an article on the topic of car-sharing and would like to post it online so that UK users are able to be find the relevant info. Are there any suggestions of how this could be done?

I have already asked for some feedback and the use of hat notes and disambiguation links have been put forward. These seem like a good way forward. Moving the articles was another solution to help resolve the ambiguity of the article called carpool. although it was suggested I write this on the discussion page to get some further opinions on the matter. Any guidance would be great, thanks Car-share10 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the article says 'also known as car-sharing', that is sufficient. We should not have two articles on the same concept just because of slight language differences between US and UK english. - MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion:Carpool article not easily accessible for UK users

[edit]

I don’t think it would be detrimental to the current article highlighting the fact that different nations use different terminology for the same things. Like boot and trunk, or sidewalk and pavement for example. Perhaps a small edit to the first line or so would be the most appropriate place as it would be immediately clear. I think such an edit would actually be advantageous and not a hindrance to the page.Car-share10 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone (should) already know that different nations use different terminology for the same things, that is why the first line of the article lists different terms that are used. We've already got five there, I think tagging each with a country would clutter up the opening too much. - MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


History

[edit]

Here's a great source with details on the history of carpooling/ridesharing: Chan, Nelson and Susan Shaheen. "Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future." Transportation Research Board, 2010. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carpool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carpool. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Long distance ridesharing

[edit]

Can't see why this needs a separate article at this time, it can instead be merged into a section in Carpool Polyamorph (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Polyamorph (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carpool&oldid=1194489132"