Talk:Vehicle insurance

GAP Insurance

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 84.153.23.16 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Too Large a Category

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

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 Template:Tlx 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 Template:Tlx to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/bad-credit-worse-than-bad-driving.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Template:Tlx).

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

mOTOR INSURANCE ARE COVERED TRANSPORT INSURANCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.52.92 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

References

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

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:

to:

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)

Template:Replyto 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 -- Template:Replyto.

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: ? Kuru (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

File:Wikipedia-Ambassador-Program-Logo.png This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term.

The above message was substituted from Template:Tlc by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA24 - Sect 200 - Thu

— Assignment last updated by BJ2352 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)