This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Shouldn't there be a picture illustrating fenders on a more standard looking modern car? Andrew Nutter Talk | Contribs 05:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This section (under the bicycle and motorcycles section) seems confused. It talks about the legal requirements for motorcyclists and then implicitly extends this logic to cyclists. The rule for motorcycles seems perfectly believable but I don't believe it applies to cycles for a minute. I've never heard of such a rule and surrounding legislation and practice seems to contradict it.
For example, there are many requirements for bikes on sale in the UK that actually go further than what is required to ride on the road - e.g. a bike needs to be sold with a bell, front and wheel reflectors but none of those are legally required to be present when riding on the road (pedal and rear reflectors are). With this in mind I find it hard to believe that it would be allowable to sell bikes lacking even the equipment needed for them to be considered roadworthy. CrispMuncher ( talk) 12:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Lyteric, I've removed the references to specific brands of aftermarket fenders for the second time on the basis of advertising. While I read the material you wrote on cooling effects, and recognize that vented fender designs might result in lower tire/wheel/brake operating temperatures, this is largely irrelevant on consumer vehicles and is not part of typical fender function.
It could easily be argued that based on the edits to this article, but especially when your other edits are considered, that the motiviation for inclusion of this material is promotion of a specific brand of stylish aftermarket fenders. Wikipedia is not an advertising site. Bradkay ( talk) 07:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding edit by AndrewDressel, the links to Audatex, CCC, and Mitchell in my view are the same as listing the old Motors manuals as references. They are estimating programs including databases with part names, just as the Motors manuals are printed databases with the same information. I included them because they are the source of recent material concerning the names of these parts.
I am not associated with these companies in any way except as a prior user of their products during many years in the insurance and collision repair industry. There is no selectivity involved in mentioning these sources. All collision estimating software in the US uses the Audatex database, the Mitchell database, or the Motors database (of which the major licensee is CCC).
I believe these references are proper to list as the source of some of the material I contributted to this article, the Motors manuals listed providing the rest. I have not listed other providers of this database information, such as CompEst or WebEst because 1) any information they have is also in the CCC or Mitchell references, and 2) listing them could be considered promotion as they have/had insignificant market share. No different than mentioning Kraft Foods in an article on BarBQ sauce while omitting the Montgomery Inn. Bradkay ( talk) 18:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it ambiguous to say Fender (vehicle), shouldn't it rather be something like Fender (vehicle part) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixelson ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
is it short for "defender" ?
Is this a reliable source:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fender
?
the article doesn't mention boats nor fireplaces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.72.23 ( talk) 06:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)