Jump to content

Talk:Electric battery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeElectric battery was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 7, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
August 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 5, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 1, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Where is the discussion for moving this to "Electric Battery"?

[edit]
Old discussion, that doesn't contain an actual move proposal. Collapsing to prevent unnecessary !voting.

This article has been moved from Battery (electricity) to Electric Battery and back and back again. Just Battery and not Electric Battery is the most common name. Constant314 (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battery is ambiguous, so it doesn't meet requirement #3 of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. I don't understand why anyone would find the removal of the parenthetical disambiguation contentious, but obviously move-warring is not the answer. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DABPAGENAME, In general, the title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely -- much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined -- to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. While "Battery" often refers to an electric battery, that usage is not much more lik4ly that the mechanical term, the legal term, and the military/firearms term combined. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: I think we agree on all points. Was the reply addressed to me, or the OP? VQuakr (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OP. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have had this discussion before and there was opposition. Before moving a popular article like this one, there should be discussion. Battery (electricity) and Electric Battery are equally disambiguous. You cannot make an argument based on ambiguity. Constant314 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2010 was a long time ago. If you wish to post a new RfC asking for the current consensus on the same question, I will be happy to self-revert until the RfC closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and see if anybody else cares.Constant314 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can exclude Battery on the basis of ambiguity. Choosing against the parenthetical is based on WP:NATURAL. VQuakr (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Battery by itself is ambiguous. But Electric Battery is not natural. Constant314 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move; restore to battery (electricity). I'm unhappy with all the back and forth moves; it should have come to the talk page sooner. I disagree that "electric battery" is that natural, but agree that the term is used. In the past, somebody searching WP would type "battery" in the search box, see the potential completions, select "battery (electricity)", and go to this article. I think that is why there were so few hits on the "battery" DAB page -- users could find "battery (electricity)" and "battery (crime)" without visiting the DAB page. With the rename to "electric battery", we are in a different situation. If I type "battery" into the search bar, I don't get "electrical battery" or "battery (electricity)" as a completion. That means I must go to the DAB page, be surprised it is a DAB, and waste time finding the correct link. So we've taken the dominant article and forced users to go through a DAB where the less dominant article "battery (crime)" can be accessed more directly. Seems like a step backward. Glrx (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with "battery (electricity)". Glrx (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was "battery (electricity)" before the current round of moves.... Glrx (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The natural disambiguation prong wants "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." To get a sense of the term's usage in reliable sources, I searched Google Books.
    I get 37 M hits for "battery". Those hits will include other kinds of batteries, but the electrochemical one is dominant.
    I get 138,000 hits for "electric battery". Not very frequent compared to just battery. If I look at the first 10 hits, 4 of them are from more than 100 years ago, 2 of them are historical works from more than 45 years ago (the historical term would be "electric battery" because batteries were not common items in the 1800s). Of the four more contemporary works, 3 are specifically about electric vehicles and apparently reinforce "electric vehicle" with "electric battery powered vehicle" or "The vehicle consists of an electric battery for energy storage, ...." (Maybe the former is really an "electric, battery-powered, vehicle" or a "battery-powered electric-motor-driven vehicle. Remember, there are diesel-electric trains that don't use batteries.) Only one contemporary source has broader scope, and it is The Electric Battery: Charging Forward to a Low-Carbon Future, by Kevin B. Jones, Benjamin B. Jervey, Matthew Roche, Sara Barnowski. Forgive me if I cringe at the pun. If I look inside the book, it is the result of the Smart Grid Project at the Vermont Law School; yes, lawyers might want to distinguish the topic from "battery (crime)".
    Yes, "electric battery" is slightly used, but it is not commonly used today.
    In most situations, the context is the energy storage object, so disambiguation is not needed. Then the phrase "electric battery" sounds redundant; it's like saying "electric electrochemical cell".
    Glrx (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. "Electric battery" is a natural term, "electric" being drop when the context is already established, which is almost always the case, but is not for the title. Note that the word comes from the word "batter", as in "to beat", or "to strike" or "to hit", through the military meaning where multiple units in parallel would batter the target, and the analogy was carried to the multiple leyden jars where multiple units in parallel were called a "battery". It is clearly a derivative term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The “go” box is a really crude search device. It would be really sad for Wikipedia to choose titles according to what suits the really poor tool. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "electric battery" was a "natural term" then, given how common the items are, we'd hear it and see it every day. We don't. Jeh (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "Battery (electricity)" was a "natural term" then, given how common the items are, we'd hear it and see it every day. We don't. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier: A parenthetical disambiguator is not considered as part of the "natural term" or "common name". Clearly not, given the vast number of WP article titles with such disambiguators. WP:COMMONNAME applies to the name independent of the disambiguator. Thus "Battery (electricity)" complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Before reading the above I favored "electric battery", and it still seems like the more natural term, but Girx makes a compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the instigator of the latest move. Just naming the article "battery" has been discussed in the past, but that is probably not an option, because "battery" is a common term for lots of different concepts. What can be usefully discussed here is whether "battery (electrical)" is a better article title than "electric battery". My view on it is that natural English is preferable to Wikipedia's parenthetical jargon style. A Google search for "electric battery" shows that it is an existing natural-language disambiguator.
    Glrx does bring up the interesting point that when using Wikipedia's search box, typing "battery" will only display articles that start with the name "battery", necessitating a trip through battery to reach this article. That's not an issue for me personally because Wikipedia's search engine is not very good – I use Google to search Wikipedia instead. It might be an argument in favor of having the search box display disambiguation pages and not just full articles, though that's a technical issue that can't be resolved during this discussion. But if not for that point, I wonder why anybody would think "battery (electrical)" is a better name for this article than "electric battery".--Father Goose (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Father Goose: ("I tell you three times...") Because of WP:COMMONNAME. I do not see how anyone can be familiar with WP:COMMONNAME and support "electric battery", let alone instigate an undiscussed move to that! I've been learning about and "doing" electronics since the beginner's tutorial books described only germanium transistors and vacuum tubes and IME the term "electric battery" is anything but common. Granted that there are uses where we put the adjective first: We might go shopping for a "car battery", a "flashlight battery", a "camera battery", etc. But I don't recall ever hearing "electric battery" used, nor do I recall ever seeing a sign, product label, magazine article, book, printed or online catalog, or parts list callout that used that term. Jeh (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(added) and regardless of what you prefer, Wikipedia's "parenthetical jargon style" is well established on Wikipedia. "Battery (electricity)" is only following policy and long-established convention. Jeh (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever hearing "Battery (electricity)" used, nor do I recall ever seeing a sign, product label, magazine article, book, printed or online catalog, or parts list callout that used that term. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answered above. Jeh (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is your experience of common usage really that different? Try going into a hardware store and ask for "electric battery" and see what kind of response you get. Jeh (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I just ask for a "battery" in a hardware store. The problem is, we're not in a hardware store. We're on Wikipedia, where battery can mean enough different things that a disambiguator is necessary. (This has been litigated in the past, and there probably isn't consensus for moving this article to battery as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.)
So at that point, it's a question of whether the article should be named "Electric battery" or "Battery (electrical)". Ever tried asking for a "battery (electrical)" in a hardware store? You'd get an even stranger look than if you asked for an "electric battery".--Father Goose (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought someone would bring that up. But WP:COMMONNAME applies to the article name exclusive of any parenthetical disambiguator. So "Battery (electrical)" is completely consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Jeh (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP house style seems to be the parenthetical word after an ambiguous title, to distinguish "Battery (electric)" from "Battery (film)" from "Battery (album)", using imaginary examples. Starting the title with "Battery..." at least keeps all the uses of the word together in alphabetical lists. When was the last time you walked into a store and asked to see the "electric batteries" ? They probably keep them right next to the "electrochemical cells". --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtshymanski: this is not accurate summary of WP's style of disambiguation, which is summarized at WP:NATURAL. VQuakr (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: I object to that characterization. It's a surprisingly close derivation of No. 3, considering I've never read the "article title- disambiguation" section till just now. All the Google books hits I'm seeing for "electric battery" are either part of an adjectival phrase, some super academic writing, or 19th century uses. "Electric battery" doesn't sound natural and "battery, electric" looks like an inventory item. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (restore Battery (electric)). My reasoning is, electric battery is never used in ordinary language. My mechanic says I need a new battery, not a new electric battery. When I want to find batteries, I ask for batteries, not electric batteries. There is just no way electric battery is natural. Battery by itself is natural, but may be ambiguous. That can be handled by Parenthetical disambiguation, the third option under Disambiguation.Constant314 (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it never happens. If it was up to me, I would call this article Battery and put a DAB-link at the top for other uses, but I don't want to put a third option in play.Constant314 (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per user Constant314. These things are called "batteries" in common usage, in online catalogs, etc. Per WP:COMMONNAME the article title should therefore at least start with that. "Battery" with a link to a DA page for the crime or the tort or etc., or "Battery (electricity)", but not "Electric battery". glrx's description of the behavior of the search tool is also apt. (To address @SmokeyJoe:'s point: It may be a poor tool but it gets a lot of use; we shouldn't just ignore it.) It does seem to me that in parenthetical disambiguation we prefer to use the name of the topic area rather than an adjective like "electric", so I would suggest "Battery (electricity)" instead of "electric". Jeh (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Battery (electricity)" is fine with me.Constant314 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

[edit]

For past discussions about this article, see the archives listed in the boxes above. Items that have not been active for a year or more have now been archived. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battery

[edit]

change ((Other uses|Battery)) to ((Other uses|Battery (disambiguation)((!))Battery))

 Not done: the existing template syntax is fine as is, since the disambig page is simply Battery and not Battery (disambiguation), which just redirects back to the first title. Highway 89 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
please see WP:INTDAB 2601:541:4500:1760:4C0C:6A13:1716:ADD6 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NiciVampireHeart 17:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rechargeable

[edit]

No mention of the nickel-iron battery in the section? Someone brought it up in archived discussion but no one answered. MartinezMD (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ingestion

[edit]

The ingestion section should mention that the more than 3V from common lithium cells is enough to generate dangerous chemical reactions in the digestive system. The 1.5V of other cells mostly doesn't do that. Gah4 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source would be helpful to use. MartinezMD (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to sources under Lithium_battery#Health_issues_on_ingestion and Button_cell#Accidental_ingestion for sources. Thomaszwilling (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

[edit]

Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act dead link active working link https://aussiebattery.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Mercury-Containing-and-Rechargeable-Battery-Management-Act.pdf Gandbatts (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I've fixed the dead link, but it's better to use the actual EPA as the source so that's what I've done. Volteer1 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2022

[edit]

You had an add saying you need help with more about the history of the battery and I just recently watched an in depth documentary of this subject. I do not know if age is required but mine is twenty five. 24.223.97.191 (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the exact change you'd like to make, as well as sourcing for said changes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citetion Request in Comparison Section

[edit]

I added Citation that was requered in Comparison section and i removed the tag if there is any problem with sources we can discuss it Mina Farage (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Some of Schmidt-Rohr's papers have been removed as references from this and and many other articles because they espouse fringe theories, were added by the author himself (in violation of WP:COI) and aren't very suitable--they're primary sources, and we'd prefer secondary ones. The statement in question is fairly obvious and well-known, and we really don't need to advertise a fringe paper as a source. IpseCustos (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2022

[edit]

I would just like to add, that: The dry cell battery was invented by a Danish industrialist, Frederik Louis Wilhelm Hellesen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Hellesen), in 1887. Parts of the company was later bought by Duracell, in 1986 (https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellesens). Razid1987 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: A lot of problems with this from an edit request perspective. One, you need to provide the exact prose you would like per WP:EDITXY. Two, you need to state where you would like the prose. Three, Wikipedia (both the English and the Danish) are not reliable sources inherently. Neither article possesses sufficient citations to substantiate the claim you are making. —Sirdog (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MichaelNhy (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MichaelNhy (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 December 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electric battery → Battery (electric) – It is better! And see discussion above. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

iT TAKES VERY LITTLE EFFORT. aND YOU MADE A GOOD P[OINT AT Talk:Electric_battery#Where_is_the_discussion_for_moving_this_to_"Electric_Battery"?. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:POSTMOVE Constant314 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. The current title is natural disambiguation. O.N.R. (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hAVE YOU EVER ASKED FOR AND ELECTRIC BATTERY AT THE SHOPS? 121.98.204.148 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

READ THIS Talk:Electric_battery#Where_is_the_discussion_for_moving_this_to_"Electric_Battery"?. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard the term "Electric battery" either. I would think that it was more naturally a "chemical battery" such as "lithium battery", "lead acid battery". Constant314 (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why aren't you supporting moving it back like you did in 2018? Unlike the Fan discussion where there had only been discussions on primary usage not natural disambiguation there have been several for this, see Talk:Electric battery/Archive 3#Propose article rename to "Electrical battery" and Talk:Electric battery/Archive 2#Move for Electrochemical battery so it should probably be restored to the original Battery (electricity) rather than the proposed "Battery (electric)" as it doesn't seem there was consensus for the 2018 move. WP:NATURAL says "do not use obscure or made-up names" which the current title is quite clearly obscure if neither you or I have heard it when its an everyday noun. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL. The parenthetical disambiguation would be a step backwards. Whether the phrase "electric battery" is common is not relevant; it is recognizable which is what WP:UCRN addresses. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The term "electric battery" is well used and documented, and is more natural than "Battery (electric)". Per WP:NATURAL, it is normal for a natural disambiguation term to be not as commonly used as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleffler (talk • contribs) 21:42, December 29, 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 25 December 2022 -- Post-close discussion

[edit]

Sorry I missed this until after the close... For those of you who opposed the RM, especially those citing NATURAL, I wonder if you could explain your position because I really don't get it. I mean, WP:NATURAL starts with this statement: "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, ..." And also: "However, do not use obscure or made-up names." I recognize that "electric battery" isn't made-up, but how is it not obscure?

I mean, I don't see a single cited reliable source for this term. I've looked, and I can't find any. The ngrams results for "electric battery" are practically zilch. The latest reference I can find for "electric battery" at the NY Times archives is from 1960. This seems to be exactly the obscure type of name (certainly not a name that this subject is "also commonly called in English reliable sources") that NATURAL says to not use as a title, so I'm really perplexed by all the oppositions here. So, I will tag each of you now. @Constant314:, @Old Naval Rooftops:, @Ortizesp:, @In ictu oculi:, @BarrelProof:, @VQuakr:.

And while I agree with Srleffler that Battery (electric) is not NATURAL, parenthetically-disambiguated titles are not supposed to be natural. That's the point. That is, the natural part is the name without the disambiguating descriptor. In this case that's "battery" which is of course perfectly natural. So pointing out the proposed parenthetically-disambiguated title is not natural is not really an argument against it. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any parenthetically-disambiguated titles.

I know other editors like Crouch, Swale and Amakuru are also disappointed in the outcome here, and I'm sure others would be as well, if they saw this. So if you could explain a bit further your interpretation of NATURAL and why you think this current title qualifies, that would be much appreciated. Alternatively, if you now realize it actually does not meet the NATURAL definition, and there are enough of you, perhaps we can start another RM? In any case, thank you! --В²C ☎ 07:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books has reliable sources that use this term.--Srleffler (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to address VQuakr's argument that "electric battery" being commonly used is "not relevant" because WP:UCRN is only concerned with it being recognizable. Well, that's not what it says. UCRN literally states Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria" and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY is only one of those five criteria. So I don't see how a title being recognizable is sufficient basis to use it, especially not per NATURAL which explicitly guides against use of names that are not commonly used. --В²C ☎ 08:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Srleffler and SmokeyJoe, thank you for finding these reliable sources demonstrating usage of "electric battery" at Books and (apparently) Scholar. And for you this is enough to qualify as "also commonly called in English reliable sources" per NATURAL? I'm curious, if you could imagine a name for a subject that is used in ERS, but not "commonly", would you expect to find no sources that refer to the subject with that term? What would satisfy you that usage with some name is not common, but only "obscure", per NATURAL? --В²C ☎ 16:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Obscure" is not the opposite of "commonly used". "Electric battery" is not obscure because the meaning is immediately clear. If you said the phrase "electric battery" to any native English speaker, he or she would know exactly what you are referring to. The phrase is used in reliable sources and has a long history; it is neither obscure nor made-up. It is a natural term.
One of the examples at WP:NATURAL is relevant: hand fan is given as preferable to fan (implement). This is analogous, because "hand fan" is certainly not a commonly used term for this implement, but it is recognizable and has a long history.--Srleffler (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of WP:TITLE recommending against using "obscure" names is to prevent us from landing at an unrecognizable title. As Srleffler notes, "obscure" and "common" are not opposites. The string "electric battery" doesn't have this problem; anyone can immediately recognize the subject from reading it. UCRN literally states Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used...": yes, generally. That's the key word here. The common name is battery; we all agree on that. But since the common name is ambiguous, we have to arrive at a consensus on the best way to disambiguate. Parenthetical disambiguation is a last-resort fallback; so electric battery, which adequately meets all 5 criteria, is the best title that has been proposed. Extending your question above a bit: no discussion on sourcing would change my mind because I care not one whit how much electric battery as been used in RS. It's immediately recognizable to any English-speaker, which along with the other 4 criteria is what we actually care about or should care about. What could change my mind is if someone proposed an alternative title and explained why it better met the 5 title criteria. VQuakr (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for now, we must agree to disagree. And unless more weigh in we can't determine consensus about this. But my position is the reason NATURAL is called NATURAL is to convey that titles should reflect what the article's subject is called, naturally, in English. I believe we are misleading readers, especially for those for whom English isn't their first language, into thinking batteries are normally referred to as "electric batteries". They aren't, and our title shouldn't make anyone think they are. --В²C ☎ 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: We, uh, have consensus on this. See the section above. As long as we're clear that your opinion isn't based in policy then you're of course welcome to your opinion. Communicating the spoken-language name of the subject isn't the goal of a title; we're not a dictionary. The goal of the title is to identify the subject and distinguish it from all other articles. I would, however, be in favor of removing the bolded word "electric" from the first sentence of the article since there's no need to repeat the disambiguator there. That's at least adjacent to your concerns. I'll go ahead and do that now. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was established in the section above is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about this particular title. What I’m saying is we don’t have WP:COMMUNITYCONSENSUS about how common usage of a name must be to refer to a particular topic to qualify as “also commonly called… albeit not as commonly” in WP:NATURAL. —В²C ☎ 17:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: I feel like it's a moot point, because if the title choice is uncommon but easily recognizable then it falls under WP:DESCRIPDIS. The subsection of the policy changes, but its acceptability under community consensus does not. VQuakr (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is the point. The low bar set by DESCRIPDIS is for topics that don’t have names, so we need to describe what the title “of our own conception” is about. I think some people get misled by descriptive titles of articles about topics that WP editors conceive, and think it’s acceptable to resort to a descriptive title, or to use relatively uncommon names as titles, (as long as it makes the topic recognizable) for topics that do have common names. That’s not the case, as is exemplified by the rarity of articles with such titles. This one now is an anomaly. And WP:NCP#Descriptive title is clear about resorting to descriptions for the purpose of disambiguation, as was done here: “Do not do this for disambiguation alone.” —В²C ☎ 13:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, DESCRIPDIS is for topics that don't have acceptable names. You dropped another key word. "Battery" isn't an acceptable name because it is ambiguous. NCP only applies to people, obviously, and is irrelevant here. This article is named per WP:TITLE; you just don't like it. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we're not going to leave words out, let's look at all of them: "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, ...". That's not referring to situations where there is a name but it's not acceptable due to ambiguity; we already have WP:D to address those situations, including NATURAL and parenthetical disambiguation. This interpretation is bolstered by the specific examples given for descriptive titles, none of which are titles of subjects with names, much less ambiguous ones: List of birds of Nicaragua, Campaign history of the Roman military, Pontius Pilate's wife. Furthermore, it refers to WP:NCP#Descriptive titles which, again, specifically says to not use descriptive titles for disambiguation, which also states: "When the subject is best known by a description, and not by a name, use it." Is the subject for this article best known as "electric battery", and not by its name, "battery"? No; of course not. So the basis for going with a descriptive title is simply not there for this article. The best argument for the current title is NATURAL, but, as noted previously, that fails because "electric battery" is not nearly common enough to qualify. --В²C ☎ 17:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do... do you think batteries are people? 'Cause you've cited NCP twice now. Sounds like the crux of our disagreement is whether "unambiguous" is a synonym for "acceptable". I would say obviously yes since it's one of the 5 criteria for determining if a title is acceptable, but maybe that's the point where we need to agree to disagree. Overall you're being far more rule-oriented than I. When evaluating RMs I tend to focus on the 5 main naming criteria rather than dissecting the policy text as if it were gospel. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course batteries are not people. The point of looking at language like that is to ascertain the meaning intended and, therefore, what community consensus is about whatever point is in question. It's like looking at the supplementary writings of the founders to determine the intended meaning of certain language in the Constitution. But the most important indicator of community consensus regarding titles is the copendum of titles themselves. With very few exceptions, like Electric battery, and not including descriptive titles that don't have names, you will not find titles that use names that are also not the names most commonly used to refer to the subject, or, if naturally disambiguated, a secondary name that is commonly used to refer to the subject, though not as commonly as the ambiguous name. The underlying clearly implied goal is to have our titles reflect what the name of the subject is to our users, and we don't want to mislead anyone about that. --В²C ☎ 02:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our PAG are nothing like a constitution except on a very cosmetic level but let's breeze past that. No, NCP can't be applied outside of its subject area even as an implication. It's addressing a specific use case. No, that's not a goal of our article titles. It just isn't, whether you think it should be or not. That's accomplished by the first sentence, where we have the freedom to list multiple common names where warranted and disambiguation isn't an issue. VQuakr (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, what you and I think doesn't matter. Community WP:CONSENSUS speaks through our titles. Hit SPECIAL:RANDOM repeatedly. See how long it takes you to find even one example of a title for its subject that doesn't fall into one of these categories:

  • the most common name for the subject,
  • the subject's scientific name when the subject is a plant,
  • the most common name (parenthetically disambiguated),
  • the most common name, disambiguated with comma,
  • naturally disambiguated title when the subject's most common name is ambiguous and this subject is not its primary use, by using a common name not quite as common as its (ambiguous) most common name, but still far more commonly used than "electric battery" is for "battery".
  • when the subject does not have a common name, a descriptive title conceived by editors

I'll wait. --В²C ☎ 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In like two edits you've gone from "our PAGs are a sacred constitution" to "never mind the policy, just look at the rough balance of our practices". Yes, of course what we think matters. Where do you think the PAGs came from? VQuakr (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many good examples like New York (state) which would be recognizable at New York State and Bray, Berkshire which could be at Bray on Thames. The title "Electric battery" clearly isn't common even if used occasionally and suggests to readers and editors its the common/official name when it isn't. Moving would make it clearer to readers and editors what the subject is called and would reduce the chances of editors calling it "electric battery" in running text. It would also as noted in the Fan discussion make it easier to find the article with the search box. Think about names of people where we use "First name, Last name (qualifier)" instead of "First name, Middle name, Last name" which is normally known by expert sources but most readers won't know and not common usage, an exception Sarah Jane Brown was kept due to problems with finding a qualifier but that doesn't appear to be a problem here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: New York State would indeed be the better title and more in line with policy, but given the WP:DRAMA surrounding its title history I have zero interest in stirring that pot. Again, identifying the common-usage name of an entity is the role of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. That's not a the purpose of the title of an article, per our policy at WP:TITLE. Hand fan is an example of an equivalent article title to this one. Less common to use the phrase in spoken English, but not novel. VQuakr (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr:, don't be silly. The Constitution is not sacred. But it is notoriously subject to interpretation, as are laws in general. Just like WP policy and guidelines are. Some are clearer than others. One tool available to interpreting the intended meaning of the less clear of all these writings are... related writings. One of your arguments is that "electric battery" is a descriptive title, and we disagree on whether descriptive titles are supposed to be used for articles with subjects that have common names. I simply pointed out that Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive_title states "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary", and we disagreed about what that means. Well, as a related writing to help us understand the intended meaning, I suggested we look at the guideline to which Wikipedia:Article_titles#Descriptive_title itself refers: WP:NCP#Descriptive titles. There, it states: "When the subject is best known by a description, and not by a name, use it." I contend that that language, though specific to articles about people there, clarifies the general intent about when use of descriptive titles is appropriate: only when the subject in question has no common name. And, again, the copendum of our titles supports my interpretation even further; it, contrary to your interpretation, explains why descriptive titles are used almost exclusively only for titles with subjects that don't have common names. --В²C ☎ 07:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electric_battery&oldid=1248434058"