Talk:Vehicle insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Vehicle Insurance Certificate in India.pdf Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Vehicle Insurance Certificate in India.pdf, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

no need to merge[edit]

Auto repair insurance is just a part of vehicle insurance. so no need to merge it.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

GAP Insurance[edit]

GAP insurance is a very special type of policy and not a synonym for vehicle insurance, as the first paragraph implies — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Too Large a Category[edit]

I am not sure why so many different types of vehicle insurance were merged into one article, but I object. Collision, comprehensive, and various types of liability are quite distinct and require separate explanations. Additionally, GAP insurance is absolutely a "bird of a different feather". I think it is worthwhile to explain this as a great number of people are required to spend money to obtain this insurance and should know what they are buying.claimman75 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed GAP insurance from the lead, added a paragraph about it to the coverage section and also added a link to its own article in the see also section. --WayfaringWanderer (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vehicle insurance. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

mOTOR INSURANCE ARE COVERED TRANSPORT INSURANCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


On 2018-06-03 KH-1 (who does many deletions without explanation) removed two references saying merely they are "spammy":

  • "Car insurance". Retrieved 2018-03-28.
  • Lerner, Michele (2016-04-14). "Mechanical Breakdown Insurance vs. Extended Car Warranty -". Retrieved 2018-06-02.

First is sponsored by the Insurance Council of Australia. Second is from an information company with an A+ rating from Better Business Bureau. I have no relation with either, but they seem to be reliable sources providing factual information. Numbersinstitute (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Similarly on 2018-06-04 KH-1 reverted without explanation in the section on India:


So to explain car insurance in India, KH-1 replaced a knowledgeable unbiased source from India with a source from Australia. WP:RS says

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

The first source is a matching service for buyers and sellers of used cars in India, so has unbiased expertise about car insurance in India. The second is an Australian government source with no claim that it applies in India. Perhaps KH-1 had an excellent reason to replace the Indian source with the Australian one, and can explain it here. I have no problem with keeping the Australian citation too, but we need the Indian source in order to have a world-wide view of the subject. In fact this is the only citation in the India section, so we need more rather than less. Numbersinstitute (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Numbersinstitute: Hello, Numbers. Your postings here raise some basic issues that do merit discussion. Before proceeding, however, I note that it is polite to notify an editor being discussed. I'll do that for you now -- @KH-1:.

Like KH-1, I too revert the addition of links to individual companies, especially those whose websites are geared towards consumer sales. To me, the issue is not whether the company is well-respected in the industry; nor is it a question of whether the company is knowledgeable about the subject matter. Instead, it's a question of whether it is appropriate to send a reader to a site that says "Click here for your free insurance quote!" (or messages to that effect). That strikes me as inherently promotional of that particular company.

It's also unnecessary, because any country with a well-developed insurance industry is going to have plenty of non-commercial entities that can be used as reliable sources. Governmental agencies, consumer groups, professional societies, financial and trade press, industry groups -- all can serve as reliable unbiased sources of information. And that's not even counting all of the professional- or college-level texts that are endorsed by one or more professional societies.

In the case of India, doesn't the Insurance Academy or IRDA publish anything relevant? Or, given that (to my understanding) insurance in India is regulated at the national level, couldn't basic descriptions be sourced to either statute or regulation? I assume the answer is "yes", in which case there seems little justification in sourcing basic facts to the websites of individual companies.

For what it's worth, I do agree with you about the appropriateness of the two Australian sources. One is an industry group; the other is a governmental website. I see no problem with using either of these sources. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a shortage of WP:RS for such a basic sentence. Instead of the simple "carsangrah" blog/content marketing link, perhaps: Datis Khajeheian; Mike Friedrichsen; Wilfried Mödinger (14 May 2018). Competitiveness in Emerging Markets: Market Dynamics in the Age of Disruptive Technologies. Springer. pp. 555–. ISBN 978-3-319-71722-7.? Kuru (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)