Talk:Teardrop trailer

POV

"Teardrop trailer owners are some of the friendliest people in the world" is good, but is it POV? Sockpuppy

Agreed, some are rather rednecky. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.19.210.8 (talk) 18:47, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Teardrop clubs?

I'd expect there to be more information on clubs and groups. I'm starting to build a teardrop and wanted some more information. Links other than googled sites would be appreciated. ||||

I'd love to give you some, like Mikenchells and CampADK but some jackhole keeps deleting any link I put, whether it is for Little Guy, Yoder Toter, T@b or Cozy Cruiser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.46.167 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is about teardrop trailers, not your personal homepage link generator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.34.28 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

There is currently an edit war going on with this article. Please stop, and instead discuss your changes here at the talkpage, and try to find a compromise. Thanks, Elonka 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have posted several messages at User talk:68.183.54.137, to no use. As for the existance of external links please see Wikipedia:External links where it clearly says Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well-chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template.. Discussion on what links to include (see above under Teardrop clubs?) have been fruitless. A simple sollution would be to semiprotect it to avoid the problem with anon blankings. // Liftarn (talk)

Protected the page until this can be resolved. I don't see any issue with the DMOZ link, per policy, where it clearly states that a web-directory category -- which is heavily used elsewhere on Wikipedia -- is a fine candidate for inclusion because there has been no consensus thus far on an expanded collection of links here. As for the image, the current image in the protected version is far more suited, giving additional detail and is framed correctly, against an image that includes an attached truck and a view that is further away and less clear. seicer | talk | contribs 15:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps we can get talk sense into the anon now. // Liftarn (talk)

Article taken over

"the current image in the protected version is far more suited" ???? This is NOT a teardrop trailer. Teardrop trailers are HAND BUILD not fiberglass manufacturered - as the article states. Great! you might as well have a picture of a Winnebago and call it a teardrop trailer. 98.223.46.234 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a hand built teardrop. See http://www.martinsigge.se/ for some more pictures or http://www.saabklubben.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50180 for the build diary. // Liftarn (talk)

Where is the rear hatch?? That is not a teardrop trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetanotheraccount345 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It is obsurd that an image of a fiberglass trailer posted by Liftarn who has never built a TD trailer and knows nothing about the subject (my opinion based on the fact he is the claimed photographer of the image that is NOT a teardrop trailer and yet calls it a teardrop trailer), replaces an image of a real teardrop trailer built by the photographer. Even more obsurd is that the moderator is backing this bogus information. This is Wikipedia at its worst. What are the qualifications of the editors? I have been building teardrop trailers for 3 years and many of the editors, including the original image author, much longer. But yet, here we are, excluding from correcting a now bogus article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.46.234 (talk • contribs)

How do you know I haven't? Get a better picture if you don't like the current one. // Liftarn (talk)

• As already mentioned, you posted an image of a trailer that is not a teardrop trailer. The fact you can not distinguish between what is and what isn't a TD, goes to show your lack of knowledge on the subject. The fact that you have edit warred for a full month tells me you are in fact, not editing in "good faith", you are just a trouble-maker. Why wouldn't you post your own TD trailer that you just implied you built? You are not fooling me kid. 98.223.26.222 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• • I might as well say that it is you that know nothing about teardrops as you don't recognize one when you see it. // Liftarn
    • Right, ok Liftarn. Let's prove it shall we:

1. Q: Why do you install the interior paneling prior to the outside skin?
2. Q: How is the bottom of the trailer protected?
3. Q: Why won't a piano hinge from a hardware store work for the side doors?
4. Q: Besides Urethane, what other alternative coating is used on the skin of a woodie?
5. Q: What is the most popular trailer brand for building a TD on?

These are easy questions for anyone who has built a TD. Yetanotheraccount345 (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Folks, please remember, Civility is policy. --Elonka 19:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So has this talk page been taken over with single purpose accounts that divulge from one source? That aside, I actually decided to do some off-wiki research on teardrop trailers, and found other images that were similar in resemblance that of which is posted on the main article page. That said, I see no reason why the SPA needs to grill an contributor over every nuance of a teardrop trailer -- that's doing nothing more than layering it on that can only have one predictable outcome -- that of which there is none positive.

Instead of layering it and being hostile (see the edit summaries for this), perhaps you should try to work out a compromise. Perhaps say, "Hey, maybe we can have both images in the article, and perhaps more?" seicer | talk | contribs 01:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Even better, a published source (preferably something from an academic publishing house or reliable newspaper/magazine) identifying what exactly a teardrop trailer was, would be nice. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Elonka 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the article "Tears of Joy" (Roads to Adventure, fall 1998)[1] they are "simple, versatile, low-cost, tow-anywhere camping trailer with living space as great as all the outdoors.". // Liftarn (talk)

Additional sources can be found with a search on both "teardrop trailer" and "teardrop trailers" at:

• http://news.google.com
• http://books.google.com
• http://scholar.google.com

So, think we're ready to lift protection yet? My recommendation is to further expand the article with sources, and to include both images on the article, either as side images in the text, or down in a gallery. --Elonka 14:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"Trailer For Two", Mechanix Illustrated, September 1947 calls it a "streamlined house on wheels".[2] "Nostalgia makes a comeback", RVBusiness, volume 59, number 3, June 2008[3] says that a teardrop "typically provide basic sleeping accommodations for two people and a rudimentary kitchen". "Teardrops of Joy for Campers Who Don't Mind Small Spaces", New York Times[4] wrote that they are "tiny, round-backed and light enough to be towed by the family car or even a motorcycle" and "In essence, teardrops are shiny, hard-shelled tents with Art Deco style. The prototypical teardrop has an aluminum skin covering a plywood frame, weighs 750 pounds and is 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet". There was a short news story[5], but tthat don't give a lot of new info. // Liftarn (talk)

Now that the article is unprotected, want to go ahead and add some of the sources? --Elonka 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'll freely admit that I am not conversant on the exact classification of what is a "teardrop trailer" and what is a "travel trailer", but we seem to have multiple images at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Travel_trailers . We could easily create a "Teardrop trailer" category at Commons, include multiple images of such trailers there, and then provide a link to that category from this article. We could also include both images at this article as well, there's no need for it to be "one or the other". --Elonka 19:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I aslo found http://www.tinytears.cc/scans.html that might be useful for sources. // Liftarn (talk)

Looks great, Liftarn! Thanks for the quick work.  :) --Elonka 20:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is how its going to go down

I've had enough of this foolishness. From liftarn's OWN LINK's THAT TRAILER HAS NO KITCHEN IN THE BACK. IT IS NOT A TEARDROP TRAILER!

I MUST SAY YOU MODERATORS ARE WORTHLESS, ALLOWING THIS GUY WHO OBVIOUSLY KNOWS NOTHING TO MAKE FOOLS OUT OF YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.2.104 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, that's not how it works. You removed valid content on the basis that you "own the copyright to the paragraph" and that you "revoked" that right for Wikipedia to use that; that is not how the process works. You also removed a valid image with no discussion, and opted for an after-party notice (above). You then added a spam link. seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

98.223.2.104, Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. It's not about what you think you know, via personal knowledge, it is about what has been published. See also no original research. If you feel that the information in this article needs to be improved, then please provide a book or newspaper/magazine citation which can be used as a source to further expand or correct the article. --Elonka 03:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well then you can block me, and block everyone else too. If you acted as true moderators and not trolls and sock pockets of Liftarn, which is clearly the case here. So far there has been NO DISCUSSION. You have posted a picture of a FIBERGLASS trailer with NO HATCH, and NO GALLEY, as a teardrop trailer. Then you edit the article and post a definition to the opposite of the picture. I'm convinced I'm just the victim of a troll here and that Elonka=Seicer=Liftarm. Congrats, you are the master of sock puppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.2.104 (talk) 09:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Photos

I think we should discuss what photo(s) to use in the article. Here are my thoughts.

• 
  Pros: Shows teardrop shape very clearly. No distractions.
  Cons: One of the largest teardrops so it's not very typpical.
• 
  Pros: Classic teardrop style. Shows that it can be towed by a small car.
  Cons: Very blurred picture. Many distractions.
• 
  Pros: Classic teardrop. Good photo.
  Cons: Large car that is a distraction from main subject.
• 
  Pros: Classic teardrop.
  Cons: The car distracts from the subject. Too tightly cropped.
• 
  Pros: Very classic teardrop. Little distractions.
  Cons: Low resolution.
• 
  Pros: Shows building of home made teardrop. Built using the Harbor Freight trailer (a popular choise for home built teardrops in the US)
  Cons: Not a finished teardrop.
• 
  Pros: Classic teardrop shape. Good resolution. Shows subject.
  Cons: A bit large for a teardrop. Hasn't the classic kitchen in the rear (not that is shows in the picture). That it's painted white makes some people think it's made of fibreglass.
• 
  Pros: Classic teardrop shape. Shows subject.
  Cons: Low resolution.
• 
  Pros: Classic teardrop shape. Shows subject.

So what do you say? // Liftarn (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Good points. Which photos are you suggesting we use? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure. I really like Image:Tabbert ideal.jpg, but it's so small (220 × 119 pixels). // Liftarn (talk)

I'm not sure of the state of the discussion, but whoever suggested that teardrops were by definition hand-built is incorrect. Many companies now manufacture - a word which means "build by hand", oddly enough - teardrop style trailers. While some follow the traditional 1930s type designs, others are far more advanced. One of the best in this last category IMO is the Alto by Safari Condo of St-Frédéric, Quebec [6] In the end, IMO the article is correct in saying that it is the streamlined teardrop shape - bulbous in front, tapered to the back - that defines the genre. 174.3.155.243 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Tom Gray, RV Feature Writer, Suite101.com

You people are morons.

Now for over a year, since the wikistupidia admins have kicked off people who have actually built these trailers, this page is worthless and full of inaccuracies. But if anyone, not in the abusive admin clic tries to correct it they are reverted.

So I'm LOL at the non-existant item that continues to be presented in this page. The item actually does NOT exist is obviously bogus and instantly known to anyone who has actually built a trailer.

What a piece of editing crap this page has become - a shining example of idiot teenage admins who can't operate a doorknob, let alone build a custom trailer - but yet "they are the experts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.43.58 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Globalize template added

I have added the globalize template to this article. I'm no expert on Teardrop trailers, but I can recognize a country-wide bias when I see it. Note that I'm not criticizing the bias as a bad thing, just saying that it's a skewed representation and needs addressing by those who do consider themselves experts. a_man_alone (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

confusion over teardrop trailers

Hi All, There seems to be some confusion over what is and isn't a teardrop trailer going on. The pictures attached to this talk section have the orange T@b caravans (pronounced tab), the 'little guy' and some others that I don't recongnise sme of the others. Technically a tab isn't a teardrop trailer as you can stand up in it and the kitchen is inside, but it's still very light and can be towed with cars like a new version mini so it's not classed as a caravan either. Perhaps a new teardrop caravan section should be started--RobF82 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Robf82

Sorry Rob, I've reverted your additions as they were worded like an advert for the company that makes them, plus you'd added the links twice - which is often indicative of spamming. I assume good faith, however, as with some rewording, and your knowledge of these contraptions, the article would surely benefit from your contributions. a_man_alone (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Commercial linking & promoting

The T@B trailer is a commercial brand, and the paragraph you are adding adds nothing to the article except to advertise the brand. Further additions will be continously treated as vandalism, and reverted - and will also most likely be reported to ANI. a_man_alone (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war by IP-hopping editor

• Teardrop trailer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There may still be some legitimate differences of opinion on this article. But at least one editor seems to be reverting the same passage over and over and is using multiple IPs. Two of the accounts pushing this view are now blocked long-term as open proxies:

• 84.36.44.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)   Blocked one year as an open proxy

The IP inserts a merge banner here. A series of different IPs continues to reinsert the merge banner, at least nine times altogether. Somebody must be proving their skill at finding open proxies. Take a look at WP:SOCK to see how much we like this.

• 213.26.255.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)   Blocked one year as an open proxy

Pushes a mention of T@B here. Other IPs push the same mention.

Using IP addresses to conduct an edit war will just bring more admins buzzing around this article. If there is any valid point to be made here, try to persuade the other editors on the talk page that you are correct. Semiprotection will put a stop to this silliness for a while, anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)