Talk:Antique car

Identify this car?[edit]

[1] Any ideas or places to post this photo? -- which is PD. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The example on how to profit from used cars is ridiculous and doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. It should be removed immediately despite its tag as a possible opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.33.101 (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire posting on antique cars is so much BS it is impossible to comment on all of it. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.83.242 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sad shape[edit]

This article has been tagged with no references since August 2008. The title is good but the article is not and at this point is wholly WP:OR. In my opinion it has been a candidate for nomination for AFD, WP:Speedy delete at worse, or Merge at the very least, for a long time. I looked at it to see if there was something I could do but it seems as if it was written (my personal OR) by a person that made a bad deal, on buying or restoring an old car, so would need a complete rewrite.

What are the options? A rewrite, someone taking it to their page, or an AFD. If this does not get a response then I will try to figure out the process of an uncontested deletion. If someone knows the protocol to submit to AFD or speedy delete it would not hurt my feelings. I took out the OR concerning antique collecting and gambling but would have to delete the whole page to clear up all the problems. If someone would want to follow the procedures to generate possible interest for a rewrite (or other options), then that would be good. Otr500 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal age for antiques[edit]

My dad told me that antiques are 100 years old or older, not 45. Classics can be aged from 20-99.

108.249.202.186 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He could be right, but we would be required to attribute that to WP:RS. Has he published any books on the subject? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

45 years vs 25 years[edit]

There is a single anon IP editor who keeps changing "In the United States, an antique car is generally defined as a car over 45 years of age, this being the definition used by the Antique Automobile Club of America" to 25 years. Does he have a valid point or is he just a persistent vandal? Stepho talk 23:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the "About" page on the website of the Antique Automobile Club of America (www.aaca.org > About), "Then, the July-August, 1974 issue of ANTIQUE AUTOMOBILE announced the inclusion of vehicles 25 years old and older into the classifications, effective February 1, 1975. This rule continues in effect today." The quoted sentence is part of a larger discussion on that page that makes clear that the categorization system changed repeatedly over time between the 1930s and 1970s, but it seems to indicate that the 25-year-old principle has not been changed since 1975. I am not an expert on this subject and I was only skimming, but based on this, I would restore his/her edit because it was apparently good faith, not vandalism. — ¾-10 17:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're jumped the gun by changing the article to 25 again so quickly. That about page is as clear a mud - the 25 year old rule mentioned there seems to be talking about either 'production' or 'classic' classes (classes 18 and 20), also mentions pre-1940 and is not clear at all about what defines an 'antique' vehicle. I haven't found their actual definitions yet but I do see a lot of other pages quoting the AACA as using 45 years. Still very much unclear. Stepho talk 23:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not married to the change; if you're convinced it's wrong, feel free to change back (but please also delete the ref I added, too, so it doesn't seem to support different data). I'm not enough of a car hobbyist to spend time delving into full research on the topic. If you change it back to 45, then I suspect you maybe should delete the line about "which is how the AACA defines it" (paraphrase) and change it to something like "which is widely considered". If someone challenges "widely considered", refs can be added that cite a 45 figure. — ¾-10 23:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not clear if I'm right or wrong, so I'll leave the article as it is while I look for better references. Stepho talk 09:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Antique car. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]