Talk:Car wash

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

Plagiarised?[edit]

I am unsure if the information on this page has been plagiarised from the following website https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/790291 or vice versa. Either way the information on this page is almost identical to that on 'Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopaedias'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzy275 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the information and added more reliable sources to this section.

I have added the 'Use of chemicals' section however this needs to be reviewed as the information should be synthesised and added to as there is a lot on the use of chemicals.

The 'History' section should have more recent information added to it also.

Drizzy275 (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

What's with the history section reading like a commercial or company marketing video? Can somebody fix this? --89.15.158.121 (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was all copy/pasted from one source. The whole section needs to be redone in my opinion. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Untitled)[edit]

Nothing about bikini car wash ? Hektor 15:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks more like an environmental article than anything... Moschenjr 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I've gone through the article and cleaned up a lot of it, but I'm not sure I got everything, which is why I'm leaving the {tone} tag. Darry2385 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still sloppy[edit]

It still needs cleaning up IMO 70.51.127.179 20:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of information in here is wrong or misleading. I plan on doing a major overhaul of the information as I am currently in the carwash industry. My company, a fully automatic, has been in business since 1948! They are stating the mid 50's? Dasoomer 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I own a car wash, and the description of the wash process sounds like it describes one specific wash, when in truth there is a lot of variations in the industry. For example, I don't run as much equipment because I have two scrubbers at the front prepping the car. Inline tire shine is far from universal as well. I last visited this article some time ago, and it is a mess now. The section on Bikini car wash doesn't tie in well, and there needs to be a lot of work done on the chemistry involved. I look forward to seeing your edits Dasoomer. Seaphoto 16:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards in automatic car washes?[edit]

Could we maybe add a part in this article where it mentions about the potental hazards in automatic car washes? Like maybe vehicle damage, people getting stuck in there, exc.?--71.116.37.15 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus is against the move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car wash → Car wash (business) — Based on the article traffic tool, more than half the —TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hits are for derivatives of car wash. See car wash 7723 car wash (song) 5650 car wash (film) 3172. --Gonezales (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support based on tool above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current use is the primary use. Making moves based on some generated numbers that does not take into account badly edited articles is not a good basis for decisions. Exactly what results from that tool would justify moving the primary use away from the primary name space? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It may be the primary use in your mind, but there is no page that gets the majority of the car wash viewers.
      Car_Wash_(song) has been viewed 5650 times in 200802.
      Car_Wash_(film) has been viewed 3172 times in 200802.
      Car_wash has been viewed 7723 times in 200802.
      Car wash (album) will surely get many hits when it is created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:DAB doesn't mention the traffic tool. It would be sensible to discuss it there before using it as the sole grounds for renaming. For one thing, you could probably generate thousands of move requests this way. Sam Staton (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page views do not directly equate to primary use. It may be a part of a bigger picture. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is the primary use when one think of "car wash". All others take the name from the business. 76.167.156.93 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - moving it would be silly. There really is only one topic, and that is a facility for washing cars. All the rest are derivative and should be the ones that get parenthetically identified. 199.125.109.59 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Car wash obviously has primary usage over a film and a song. Even if we are to give any credence to this traffic tool (and I don't think for a minute that we should), it quite clearly shows that car wash gets the most hits. It's all a question of how you interpret the numbers. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If that's what this tool indicates, it just shows the tool is misleading. Primary usage in terms of WP:NC is obvious from even the quickest scan of the disambiguation page. Andrewa (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the tool clearly indicates that car wash is the primary usage, with 37% more views than the next most viewed page, and that the page should not be moved. --Gonezales (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PC78. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for now. Using wikipedia page views to determine primary topic is problematically solipsistic. At the very least there needs to be a wider discussion about the appropriateness of using the tool for that purpose. older ≠ wiser 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this. Why is "business" an appropriate disambiguator? The word "business" doesn't currently appear on the page at all. Sam Staton (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination appears to be part of a campaign to revisit WP:NC in terms of a web tool. If this particular case is any guide, the web tool in question is quite useless. Andrewa (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Web statistics tool for some discussion of the statistics tool. Andrewa (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes regarding touchless and touch-free car washing.[edit]

I respect the hard work that the original author and other contributors have done with this article and do not want to anger or offend. I believe the car wash industry and the casual reader will be best served, however, by an article that refrains from opinion, and works to simply outline the history of the industry and the various methods and equipment car washes utilize. This is why I was compelled to edit statements regarding touch-free car washing which seemed to perhaps be based on opinion rather than cited studies, statistical evidence or research. Conversely, there are studies which show the positive effects of touch-free washing, but I chose not to include them in my edit because I do not want to degrade an otherwise fine article into a battle of words defending the benefits of one technology over an other which seems contrary to the intention of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispy2001 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machine makers[edit]

I suggest create a list of car wash machine makers (i.e. http://www.istobal.com/ingles.asp ). --Nopetro (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just point to the DMOZ? (http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Industrial_Goods_and_Services/Machinery_and_Tools/Cleaning_Equipment/Vehicle_Washers/Manufacturers/)Tenacious Chance (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "mitter" is not all too familiar with most people[edit]

For what particular reason is the term "mitter" classified onto the car wash ribbons moving left and right or back and forth? Being part of the UWEC people, I saw these ribbons moving in car washes beginning in September 1990, and I don't remember anyone mentioning the term "mitter" prior to June 2008 (not in public, but across Internet) to describe these curtains.

Cassie Anne and University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Class under IP address number 173.19.119.172 (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Mitter", "wrap"/"wraparound", and "rocker" are obscure terms that need elaboration. I've tagged the article appropriately. —Eekerz (t) 05:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Article[edit]

The Waterless Car Wash information is incorrect. Waterless technique isn't known as "chemical", it makes it sound non-biodegradable, which is exactly what many of these products are. I won't say ALL, because that wouldn't be true, but it indeed is not a man-made chemical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.38.43 (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In-Bay vs Tunnel[edit]

I think a differntiation needs to occur in the Automaics section of the article regarding In-Bay Automatics and Tunnels (regular and "express"). There are two completely different wash styles (from the consumers standpoint) and should be separated. Ask around, I'm sure you'll find at least one person that refuses to use a car wash with a converyor (they may call it a pull-through car wash). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenacious Chance (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better image[edit]

I changed the top image for 2 reasons: (1) More typical image of a carwash. (2) International perspective (carwash in Australia) - less bias to the US. Halloleo (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== I don't think this article needs necessarily more globalisation. Therefore I'll remove the "Globalize" tag. Halloleo (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork Improvement[edit]

As of this week, it's currently listed in the Wikipedia's current article for improvement, and I think it needs more.

Overall, History is finished, which I did little of copyediting, I mixed infos with other researches I have found, overall, it made perfect sense and comprehensive style of understanding. In my opinion, this article will be improved much greatly by the use of thoughts and thinkings, so that it can be fully improved by the end of this week. I am thinking of adding the section called "Technique", that teaches the reader on how to easily learn to do car wash. Apparently, we can add videos as a tutorial in it too... It only needs Teamwork. CryOceD (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Car wash. 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) 22:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for modifications in the touchless wash section[edit]

Hey there, I'm working on improving Wikipedia's coverage of car washes; to disclose, I have a conflict of interest as I am employed by FreshRobot and am working on behalf of a client, Autec, a manufacturer of car wash equipment. The current section in this article on touchless washes is entirely unsourced and lacks important details. Currently, the section reads as follows:

In order to avoid marking paintwork, "touchless" (aka "touchfree" or "no-touch") car washes were developed as an alternative to automatic car washes using brushes. During the friction zone of a conveyorized/tunnel car wash, a touchless car wash forgoes brushes and uses high water pressure plus chemicals to clean the vehicle which minimizes the chance of surface damage to the vehicle. There are five primary factors to cleaning a vehicle successfully using a touchless system. These five factors are water quality, water temperature, chemistry, time, and water pressure generated by the equipment. If these factors are all set properly, vehicles will come out clean and shiny without the chance of vehicle damage caused by brushes.

I suggest this section be changed to the following:

Like soft-touch car washes, touchless car washes are automated; however, they are not impacted by the foam or cloth applicators that soft-touch washes use, instead relying on high-pressure washers to both clean and rinse the vehicle off. Sensors utilized by these washes allow for a more precise clean along the vehicle's exact shape.[1] Because the vehicle is not physically impacted during a touchless wash, the vehicle is at a lower risk of being damaged. However, touchless washes have a harder time cleaning off tougher materials or reaching difficult-to-reach locations on vehicles, and their usage of stronger chemicals can potentially damage a vehicle's paint finish.[1][2]

This change would provide greater detail into the functionality of touchless washes as well as their benefits and downsides. Additionally, it is of more value to the reader and it is also properly sourced to two articles in an industry publication, Professional Carwashing & Detailing, with is a very reliable source on the equipment of car washes. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current section is not all that good, your proposed one is an improvement. I think a bit more detail about the process would be nice. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toasted Meter here's a proposed expansion. This includes more detail on how the system works, specifically the use of a tunnel and the strength of the detergent being stronger. Modified areas are in bold:

Like soft-touch car washes, touchless car washes are automated, with the vehicle passing through a tunnel where the vehicle is cleaned; however, touchless car washes do not use the foam or cloth applicators that soft-touch washes use, instead relying on high-pressure washers to both clean and rinse the vehicle off. Sensors utilized by these washes allow for a more precise clean along the vehicle's exact shape.[1] To compensate for not physically contacting the vehicle, touchless washes use more caustic detergents than ordinary car washes.[3] Because the vehicle is not physically impacted during a touchless wash, the vehicle is at a lower risk of being damaged. However, touchless washes have a harder time cleaning off tougher materials or reaching difficult-to-reach locations on vehicles, and their usage of stronger chemicals can potentially damage a vehicle's paint finish.[1][2]

Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the changes. Do conveyor touchless washes exist? I don't think they do, and if that's true a mention that the car remains stationary through the wash might be worth noting. Toasted Meter (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear they exist, at least according to this manufacturer. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If anything else is needed, let me know. Under COI rules I'm not supposed to make any changes, so someone else would need to add them if the changes are approved. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Hobby, Tom (September 4, 2019). "Pros and cons: soft-touch vs. touch-free carwashing". Professional Carwashing & Detailing. Retrieved October 15, 2019.
  2. ^ a b Dwyer, David (October 1, 2015). "Soft cloth versus touch-free carwash equipment". Professional Carwashing & Detailing. Retrieved October 15, 2019.
  3. ^ Johansen, Mark (July 2, 2019). "Will a Car Wash Hurt Your Car's Finish?". MSN. Retrieved October 15, 2019.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Car_wash&oldid=1194840453"