Cuchullain (talk | contribs) Reopening per request. |
→Requested move 22 February 2016: question |
||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
*'''Oppose''' current proposal; the proposed title should not be in [[title case]] as it is a generic, not a proper, name. --Regards, [[User:James Allison|James]](<sup>[[User talk:James Allison|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/James Allison|contribs]]</sub>) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' current proposal; the proposed title should not be in [[title case]] as it is a generic, not a proper, name. --Regards, [[User:James Allison|James]](<sup>[[User talk:James Allison|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/James Allison|contribs]]</sub>) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
*:{{ping|James Allison}} you opposed the proposed title on grounds of title case/sentence case, but what is your opinion of it other than that? Do you favour the current title of "Self-balancing two-wheeled board", or do you think "Self-balancing scooter" (sentence case) would be a better title? Thanks — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support move to [[Self-balancing scooter]]'''. As {{u|X4n6}} notes, the most common term appears to be "Hoverboard", but the primary topic for that is still the Back to the Future concept, and if the choice is between moving it to [[Hoverboard (wheeled transport)]] or similar, versus moving to some other commonly used name, then we'd rather choose the other name per [[WP:NATURAL]]. Of the other available names (Swegway, Self-balancing unicycle, and Balance board are others I've heard), Self-balancing scooter is probably the most common, and is certainly better than the current awkward and verbose title. As {{u|James Allison}} rightly mentions, the name should be in sentence case, not title case, per [[WP:TITLEFORMAT]] as it isn't a title or proper noun. Thanks — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Support move to [[Self-balancing scooter]]'''. As {{u|X4n6}} notes, the most common term appears to be "Hoverboard", but the primary topic for that is still the Back to the Future concept, and if the choice is between moving it to [[Hoverboard (wheeled transport)]] or similar, versus moving to some other commonly used name, then we'd rather choose the other name per [[WP:NATURAL]]. Of the other available names (Swegway, Self-balancing unicycle, and Balance board are others I've heard), Self-balancing scooter is probably the most common, and is certainly better than the current awkward and verbose title. As {{u|James Allison}} rightly mentions, the name should be in sentence case, not title case, per [[WP:TITLEFORMAT]] as it isn't a title or proper noun. Thanks — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 14:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
**'''Response.''' Perhaps it would be useful for those commenting here to review the previous discussions on this page about this question, as it appears some folks haven't read them. As required by [[WP:NAMINGCRITERIA]], there seems to be both [[WP:PRECEDENT|precedent]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] that, while the current name is admittedly imprecise, it needs to remain for now. As no other name has emerged that is definitive. It makes no sense to incrementally replace one imperfect title with another. That's why I suggested we all wait for the market to identify a correct name, not editors. Once they are declared safe and legal again, the market and appropriate governmental agencies will determine an appropriate name. Then we can rightfully revisit this and have a full and fully informed discussion. But not before that. Any judgment we made now would be completely arbitrary and would likely be changed again anyway after the market and those agencies decide. [[User:X4n6|X4n6]] ([[User talk:X4n6|talk]]) 02:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC) |
**'''Response.''' Perhaps it would be useful for those commenting here to review the previous discussions on this page about this question, as it appears some folks haven't read them. As required by [[WP:NAMINGCRITERIA]], there seems to be both [[WP:PRECEDENT|precedent]] and [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] that, while the current name is admittedly imprecise, it needs to remain for now. As no other name has emerged that is definitive. It makes no sense to incrementally replace one imperfect title with another. That's why I suggested we all wait for the market to identify a correct name, not editors. Once they are declared safe and legal again, the market and appropriate governmental agencies will determine an appropriate name. Then we can rightfully revisit this and have a full and fully informed discussion. But not before that. Any judgment we made now would be completely arbitrary and would likely be changed again anyway after the market and those agencies decide. [[User:X4n6|X4n6]] ([[User talk:X4n6|talk]]) 02:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:00, 5 April 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
"Hoverboard"
As seen here, there's disagreement about whether to use the name "hoverboard" as a synonym in the lead. Per MOS:BOLDSYN, "if the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." As the article tells us: "The word "hoverboard" is one of the terms used to describe these vehicles, but the accuracy of that appellation is contested." Because "hoverboard" is a name that is being used, it should be listed as a synonym, even if it is deemed to be incorrect; we cover names as they are used, not as they should be used. Opinions? Sandstein 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Under MOS:LEAD there is this note: "Do not violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section."[1]. In this case, an entire section of the article is devoted to the term "hoverboard," with the Oxford English Dictionary saying the term is inaccurate, "as they are hoverboards in name only." It also notes the potential confusion with the hoverboards from the "Back to the Future" films, which are obviously different. More importantly, the OED also points out the term "hoverboard" is a trademarked word in the US and the UK. So it's a brand name. If it goes anywhere else, besides the terminology section - it should go in the brand section. But that brand name has no more place in the lead than any of the other major brand names it's popularly known as, like Monoboard, Airboard, Phunkee Duck or IO Hawk. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:4829:9ACB:FABF:338F (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion
Response to third opinion request: |
At first, I was a little on the fence about this one because it appears that "hoverboard" has become a generic trademark over time. But since it already has its own article, maybe the lead section can contain an addendum stating its current status as a generic trademark. (Conversely, for example, "Thermos" is also a generic trademark but it doesn't have an article (it redirects to vacuum flask), which is probably why it is subjected to a brief mention in that article's lead section.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
Fourth opinion
Response to third opinion request: |
At first blush, I would have found Erpert's generic trademark argument persuasive - except for one thing. "Hoverboard" isn't the only generic trademark/brand name this thing is known by. Depending on the source, I've read/heard/seen them called "Segways," "IO Hawks," "IO Boards," "Phunkee Ducks," or "Airboards," in the UK. A cursory YouTube search of any of these terms will prove that. So all of those are also generic trademarks. I don't see how or why we would select one generic trademark for the lede, when there are so many others as well. It's not as clear cut as say "Xerox-ing" or "Photoshop-ping." But I also found 2 other arguments to be persuasive. "Hoverboard" is a brand name. So we show unfair bias for that company if we arbitrarily just confer preferential treatment to it in the lede. I don't see any necessity or benefit to us for doing that. But I also found the NPOV note to be persuasive. Clearly, this thing has way too many names already - even whether to call it a "board" or a "scooter" - for us to be muddying the water more by throwing only certain brand names into the lede. Until time clarifies a consensus name, I think we need to remove "Hoverboard" from the lede. Particularly when we have a respected dictionary source in the article saying pretty authoritatively, that it's not a "hoverboard" by any factual definition. I think it's pretty clear that the style guide requires us to err on the side of caution for now. Because we can always revisit this in a few months, when a more universally accepted name may finally emerge. But we obviously aren't there yet. X4n6 (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC) |
'hoverboard'
- It is erroneous to call these hoverboards, however commonly that may be done. They do not hover.....Royalcourtier (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- I second Jrgilb. The previous "consensus" stated that it should be revisited, and a review of reliable sources describing these clearly shows that "hoverboard" is a common term. While the term may have its origin in the BTTF franchise, stating that it is "erroneous" is a violation of NPOV - we describe usage, not make value judgments about it. Wikipedia should reflect common usage. This article's current tone towards the term, in addition to being an NPOV violation, does not do that. Furthermore, having a separate section to quote one critic of the term is a violation of due weight. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 06:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that you seconded a comment from someone who referenced an SNL skit and felt a LOL heading and "LOLOLOLOLOL!" were all constructive comments. But while the previous consensus did state the term could be revisited in a few months "when a more universally accepted name may finally emerge" it also said "But we obviously aren't there yet." We still aren't. But consensus is still clear about three things, and you've only acknowledged two: 1) They are simply not "hoverboards;" 2) In the absence of a universally accepted term, many call them "hoverboards," as a convenience. But that is just a colloquialism - not a definition. Your suggestion, that we are compelled to use a colloquialism as a definition, is unsupported by either policy or common sense. The job of an encyclopedia is to disseminate both information and knowledge. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The lead should acknowledge both the usage of the term "hoverboard" as well as any substantive issue regarding its accuracy. Per WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." To your claim, that isn't an NPOV violation. Because it isn't even an opinion. It's a fact. These things are not "hoverboards," either in: a) definition - as the OED clearly explained; b) construction - as noted above, they do not "hover;" or c) even in their similarity to the hoverboards in the BTTF films - as there is no similarity. So we fulfill our responsibility by acknowledging both the information that people are calling them "hoverboards" and the knowledge that they are not "hoverboards." Finally, you also failed to acknowledge, as was also addressed in the original consensus, that the word "hoverboard" is trademarked in both the U.S. and the U.K. So undue weight would be to favor the trademark holders of that term for it, to the exclusion of trademark holders of other terms for it, if we appeared to arbitrarily legitimize that term to the exclusion of any and all others. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C1D2:34CE:F407:86BF (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Jrgilb, since you asked that I address you directly, I will oblige. First, you accused me of an "ad-hominen critique that is completely beside the question at issue." Then you, yourself, launch into a rambling, tangential speech, replete with non sequiturs about: "humor," "terrible writing," and the sausage-making of "university research;" closing with a tortured screed about "consensus" vs. "tolerance for dissent;" and a self-serving dollop of your own views regarding the utility of this project, thrown in, presumably, for good measure. All of which, while perhaps mildly entertaining polemics within the context of a Gore Vidal/William F. Buckley construct, has, really, preciously little probative value here. I remind you this is an encyclopedia - as dull and as dry as that enterprise might be for you. I don't need an encyclopedia, dictionary or thesaurus to traffic in either wit or cuteness. I just need the dry knowledge I'm looking for. Perhaps it would be useful for you to remember that in subsequent responses. But even more useful, would be responses which limited themselves to the - albeit, narrow - focus of the topic: which is still - believe it or not: whether the term "hoverboard" should be used to define these devices. Anything else, just takes us further down the rabbit hole; and frankly, I think it best that I decline to respond further in that effort. However, since you appear to enjoy both "humor" and cultural references, finally, I will caution you against throwing around claims of "ad hominems" where none exists. With a nod to "The Princess Bride:" "You used that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C821:7D4F:22A2:5EA9 (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- User:James Allison, on a second matter, I've noticed both the volume and content of your recent edits on the article. I am concerned that you are sacrificing significant substance at the altar of "style." It appears that you are condensing the article to such an extreme level that you've managed to delete enormous swaths of knowledge for no other purpose than what appears to be an attempt to see how much information can possibly be squeezed into the fewest lines of type. That makes it unnecessarily difficult for the reader to find specific information they are looking for. While it also places the onus on the reader to read the links to gain any real information. Rather than the links simply documenting the information provided, which is their actual purpose. All real information is now being left out of the article - with it essentially just becoming a bullet point mechanism - pointing to the original sources in order to learn anything. I don't find that CliffNotes approach useful to an encyclopedia. I believe that should be the subject of discussion as well. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C1D2:34CE:F407:86BF (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Re Swegway and Soar Board, why are these not major brands? They were removed by 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C9CA:26B5:E9A5:76FB in this edit and this other edit and replaced with Swagway.
Also, in this edit to the 1st photo, 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C9CA:26B5:E9A5:76FB removed completely factual reference "Soar Boards (2015-10-07). "Zero G Hands Free Segway / 2 Wheel Self Balancing Scooter / Hoverboard | Flickr - Photo Sharing!". Flickr. Retrieved 2015-12-05. Credit: www.soarboards.com." and removed the content "red Soar Board" and a pair of parentheses. The photo is, in point of fact, of a "red Soar Board" generously contributed by Soar Boards to Flickr (using its "Soar Boards" Flickr account) with a "CC BY 2.0" license, which requires that we "give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means [we] are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied" per https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode, and then uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. https://www.flickr.com/photos/136833700@N04/21403154443/ specifically states what looks like "If you use this image please credit to, www.soarboards.com", so I feel we must honor that, and the thumbnail's caption's footnote is reasonable to the medium.
Thus, I believe that 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C9CA:26B5:E9A5:76FB appears to be biased against the Soar Board and Swegway brands and the Soar Boards and ShopSwegWay companies/websites and towards the Swagway brand and company/website based on its pattern of edits to this article, and I am reverting those edits (but keeping Swagway on the list). — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- RESPONSE:
- Jeff G. ツ appears to be confused about the phrase "Major brands." As used and intended here, the term "brand" refers to manufacturers (or distributors), not individual products. That definition should be clear by the context, as the section also references major "rebrands". But unfortunately, Jeff G. ツ now appears to be on a mission to include every conceivable version of every individual product. Seriously, does the article really need to list six different versions of the "Esway N" series and three different versions of SwegWay? If they are so important, (though I don't believe they are), then perhaps they deserve their own separate article. But that certainly was never intended here, clear because only Jeff G. ツ has tried to do it. He is the only individual to have, not only misinterpreted the term "brands" to conflate it with "products," but to also have taken it to its predictable extreme.
- Regarding Jeff G. ツ's question of what constitutes a "major brand?" The answer is simple: if you have to link to the primary source, it is not a major brand. Major brands will have ample, reliable, third party sources, which WP requires. Also, please note, that E-commerce sources are specifically prohibited.
- Jeff G. ツ also consistently ignored my repeated edit summary warnings that WP is NOT an advertising site. He failed to either acknowledge or respond to those warnings, which consistently pointed out that all the edits I removed violated WP:PROMO or WP:NOADS. He also not only ignored the warnings and reverted my edits to restore those violations, but then he added new violations of the same type. Also, contrary to his claim, I also removed all minor rebrands, now just his ShopSwegway website. If Jeff G. ツ has a WP:COI because of either Soar Board or SwegWay, which seems very possible under the circumstances, he needs to divulge any association he has with either company.
- On that note, regarding putting the name Soar Board in the caption for the photo, I would note that User:Sandstein not only contributed the photo, but also contributed the photo's title and caption, which do not include a brand name. User:Sandstein also regularly contributes to this article. So I will contact Sandstein and ask that editor to weigh in on the proper photo caption.
- While I will assume good faith, that is certainly more courtesy that he afforded me. Either in ignoring my repeated warnings and reverting them, or in accusing me of bias here. My only "bias" is in contributing to keeping the article informative, within the rules, and trying to help prevent it from become an advertising site for every obscure storefront seller who put up a website and/or is looking to hike Holiday sales out of their storage unit. Those are my only motives, which Jeff G. ツ questioned. Now we're left to hear his. And any bias or conflict of interest he needs to reveal.
- But again, to the extent that it was a legitimate and reasonable misunderstanding, I will rename the category "Major Distributors" to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation that the term "Brand" has clearly caused. I'll also remove any product models, as obviously, they aren't manufacturers. If Jeff G. ツ objects, rather than edit-warring, may I recommend that he build consensus to give all the product names their own article. For now, I'll leave the re-brands reference up, but would welcome a discussion about that as well. Perhaps we need to just keep this section about distributors, because "re-brands" just leaves the door open to continued confusion and non-applicable additions. Hopefully, moving forward, this will resolve the problem. And, if we're lucky, also keep folks from trying to edit the article for their own commercial purposes. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:D45F:D14F:90AC:5DBA (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- My view: We are showing this photo in order to illustrate the generic type of device, not to illustrate the specific brand. Accordingly, we use a generic caption. For example, at Laptop, the photograph indicates that the device pictured is a laptop, not that it is an "Acer Aspire 8920". Sandstein 08:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, but as the photo was your contribution, I felt it warranted your input. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:D45F:D14F:90AC:5DBA (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am aorry. I was going by the contributions of one IPV6 address. Now, I see that the source of about 89 edits to this article appears to be one person who came to this article with editing experience, has so far declined to create an account, and whose IPV6 address matching "2602:306:*" appears to change with every editing stint, usually as frequently as every day, although it changed twice one day. I will refer to that person as 2602:306. Not that any of the preceding is bad per se, but it clouded my perceptions with the individual IPV6's similarity in editing pattern to previous vandals and SPAs I have encountered on this project. In any case, I am a Master Editor III because I have made over 89,000 live edits (and over 5,000 deleted edits) to this project in the past almost nine years. I came to this article as a reader and prospective purchaser (after seeing news reports and a kiosk selling one brand of these boards in boxes at a local mall (ask if you want more specific info), and previously seeing news reports on the Segway, but never having seen any of them in person) looking for information on these boards (with no ties I know of to anyone or anything in the entire supply chain of these boards), and I did not like what I found. Some of the info in the table was unsourced, and people were adding and removing information willy-nilly without explaining in edit summaries. So, I set out to improve the table in reverse alphabetical order by finding a source for every filled cell, while researching my potential purchase. Some websites do not make this easy, distributing the Brand, Speed, Range, and Max Load on up to four separate pages for each product, which requires a reference for the spelling and text styling of the Brand and up to three separate references for each product or model which differs on any of the three Speed, Range, and Max Load figures. Some of the brands encompass more than self-balancing two-wheeled boards and some of the models have vastly different figures. Conflating figures from the adult models with those from the lighter, smaller, more speed-restricted models designed for children seemed unfair to both groups of prospective riders. For all those reasons, I made separate rows and multiple refs. Now, after the latest eight edits by 2602:306 this morning UTC, we have no information on the Esway, Future Foot, Galactic Wheels, Monorover, Northboard, and Soar Board brands which were originally added by other editors than myself, we have no sources for the Max Speed and Range of the Oxboard brand, and we have misleading specs about Swegway that do not include the faster 20 km/h (12 mph) speed of the SwegWay 3.0 AKA SwegWay Big Wheels, the faster 15 km/h (9.3 mph) speed of the SwegWay for Kids AKA SwegWay Kids, or the reduced 68 kg (150 lb) Max Load of the SwegWay for Kids. Regarding specifications in general, the primary source of them is the specifiers, engineers and designers. We on the Internet only get them from the websites of the manufacturers (if we are lucky) or someone on down the chain of wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and ads (interestingly, Esway appears to be all-in-one). I have yet to see a single spec in the table with a verifiable reference from a reliable secondary source (although there are such for the surrounding text that justify the existence of the article), so I followed the lead of previous editors of the table by using primary sources based on URLs provided by those previous editors. What justifies "ShopSwegWay" as a brand when all of the product models do not include "Shop", only "SwegWay"? Where may I find information for this article on what a brand is, what makes it major or a sub-brand, and the verifiability and reliability of that information? On a personal note, barring cost concerns, my ideal such device would have 10" or larger pneumatic tires for a smoother ride and a better ability to surmount: unintentional obstacles like the interfaces between concrete slabs on sidewalks, pavements, walkways and such that have settled differently; and intentional obstacles like the bumps on red handicapped ramps in this area that tell the vision-impaired that they are close to the street, and the interfaces between different materials or materials that were laid at different times. It would also be relatively fast and light, and take me relatively far. I understand that for any product you can have any two of high speed of manufacturing, high quality, and low price, but not all three. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Jeff G. ツ, I intentionally left most of your sourcing for the brands in tact, because I wanted to wait to give you an opportunity to respond here. I know how frustrating it can be when you devote significant time to an article, only to have your work reverted. As an editor of some tenure here (as you pointed out), this is undoubtedly not your first rodeo in that regard. It's the nature of the beast. But now that you've responded, I wanted to give you the courtesy of the heads' up that I'd like to restore the original sources for each distributor, which simply linked to the speed/range/max load info provided and nothing more. Or perhaps you'd like to do it? Maybe we should also include third party RS for every distributor listed and include those after each name? But I hope we can agree that, as much as possible, we need to try to avoid primary sources that only link to sales pages on websites. Also, as mentioned earlier, I'll accept as reasonable your interest in a sub-article which lists as many individual types and brands as possible. So if you'd like to create it, I'll vote to support it. I just hope you realize the Pandora's box you'll be opening: as every storefront retailer, WordPress website, or reseller from the back of a van, is going to try to include their "version" of the product on WP and we'll have little justification for keeping them from doing so.
- I am aorry. I was going by the contributions of one IPV6 address. Now, I see that the source of about 89 edits to this article appears to be one person who came to this article with editing experience, has so far declined to create an account, and whose IPV6 address matching "2602:306:*" appears to change with every editing stint, usually as frequently as every day, although it changed twice one day. I will refer to that person as 2602:306. Not that any of the preceding is bad per se, but it clouded my perceptions with the individual IPV6's similarity in editing pattern to previous vandals and SPAs I have encountered on this project. In any case, I am a Master Editor III because I have made over 89,000 live edits (and over 5,000 deleted edits) to this project in the past almost nine years. I came to this article as a reader and prospective purchaser (after seeing news reports and a kiosk selling one brand of these boards in boxes at a local mall (ask if you want more specific info), and previously seeing news reports on the Segway, but never having seen any of them in person) looking for information on these boards (with no ties I know of to anyone or anything in the entire supply chain of these boards), and I did not like what I found. Some of the info in the table was unsourced, and people were adding and removing information willy-nilly without explaining in edit summaries. So, I set out to improve the table in reverse alphabetical order by finding a source for every filled cell, while researching my potential purchase. Some websites do not make this easy, distributing the Brand, Speed, Range, and Max Load on up to four separate pages for each product, which requires a reference for the spelling and text styling of the Brand and up to three separate references for each product or model which differs on any of the three Speed, Range, and Max Load figures. Some of the brands encompass more than self-balancing two-wheeled boards and some of the models have vastly different figures. Conflating figures from the adult models with those from the lighter, smaller, more speed-restricted models designed for children seemed unfair to both groups of prospective riders. For all those reasons, I made separate rows and multiple refs. Now, after the latest eight edits by 2602:306 this morning UTC, we have no information on the Esway, Future Foot, Galactic Wheels, Monorover, Northboard, and Soar Board brands which were originally added by other editors than myself, we have no sources for the Max Speed and Range of the Oxboard brand, and we have misleading specs about Swegway that do not include the faster 20 km/h (12 mph) speed of the SwegWay 3.0 AKA SwegWay Big Wheels, the faster 15 km/h (9.3 mph) speed of the SwegWay for Kids AKA SwegWay Kids, or the reduced 68 kg (150 lb) Max Load of the SwegWay for Kids. Regarding specifications in general, the primary source of them is the specifiers, engineers and designers. We on the Internet only get them from the websites of the manufacturers (if we are lucky) or someone on down the chain of wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and ads (interestingly, Esway appears to be all-in-one). I have yet to see a single spec in the table with a verifiable reference from a reliable secondary source (although there are such for the surrounding text that justify the existence of the article), so I followed the lead of previous editors of the table by using primary sources based on URLs provided by those previous editors. What justifies "ShopSwegWay" as a brand when all of the product models do not include "Shop", only "SwegWay"? Where may I find information for this article on what a brand is, what makes it major or a sub-brand, and the verifiability and reliability of that information? On a personal note, barring cost concerns, my ideal such device would have 10" or larger pneumatic tires for a smoother ride and a better ability to surmount: unintentional obstacles like the interfaces between concrete slabs on sidewalks, pavements, walkways and such that have settled differently; and intentional obstacles like the bumps on red handicapped ramps in this area that tell the vision-impaired that they are close to the street, and the interfaces between different materials or materials that were laid at different times. It would also be relatively fast and light, and take me relatively far. I understand that for any product you can have any two of high speed of manufacturing, high quality, and low price, but not all three. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Finally, on a personal note: may I offer a friendly recommendation against being so quick to assume that every similar looking IP is the same editor. Even within the parameters you identified, I assure you that not all those edits are mine. And yes, while I am also an editor of some experience, (having done so, respectfully, quite longer than the nine year tenure you acknowledged), I have no compelling interest in doing so from a mandated account; nor, of course as you know, should you infer anything from that choice. Remember, WP:URIP2. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:D45F:D14F:90AC:5DBA (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. FYI, Modell's is now advertising a SwagWay on TV for US$399.99 but on their website they don't disclose the US$14.00 "Oversized Shipping" charge until one gets to the Shopping Cart. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
non sequitur
Why does this sentence belong in the section on battery problems? "In Alperton, a suburb of London, a 15-year-old boy was struck and fatally injured by a bus, while riding a board.[24]" 100.15.120.162 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct. It doesn't belong there. But that's what happens when you condense and distill an entire article down to just its bullet points. Invariably, some things no longer fit. This really needs to be addressed. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:F950:E9D7:202C:F7D5 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The actual board
The history section seems unnecessarily long and information about the board itself seems lacking. Can we get more information there?192.77.126.50 (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- While I don't find the History section to be unnecessarily long at all, given the public interest - and frankly, given the device's rather complicated and convoluted history; if you'd like to begin contributing a well-sourced section on its construction, that would likely be useful. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:F56F:246A:BAB9:B559 (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposed edits
per BRD - the first mention of "hoverboard" in the lead should be capitalized per BOLDTITLE. Many of the sources used in the article itself, even the ones sourcing the current clunky article title, refer to these devices as hoverboards. Not bolding the term emphasizes the other terms, violating NPOV. Additionally, using a large block quote from an advocate of one meaning of the word is a DUE violation (comes close to copyvio, too), particularly when the Terminology section obscures that a vast amount of the reliable sources use the term "hoverboard" without qualifiers. It suffices to state what the OED editor's opinion is. OED is not a language academy, and their editors' opinions, while useful, are not the only ones that should be reflected and emphasized in the article. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- BOLDTITLE, as the name suggests, only applies to an article's title. Hoverboard is the title of a different article. Also please review the discussion of the term "hoverboard" above. As you'll see, the term has already been extensively litigated here, and per policy, consensus has already been reached. That term, used to describe these devices, is a colloquialism. Nothing more. That is not an opinion - it is a fact. They do not hover. So no POV exists. That's also confirmed by the fact that the word is already Wikilinked in this article to the article that is actually about hoverboards; and as that article demonstrates, those are very different devices. While you are correct that the vast majority of the reliable sources in this article do use the term "hoverboard" - you neglected to mention that they also put the term in quotations or, at the very least, note the term is a casual reference. None of them specifically reference it as either an accurate term or definition. As the lead of the article also clearly states, there is no consensus term for them. And speaking of definitions, OED doesn't have to be a language academy, because it is already something much better: a dictionary. Further, as the OED also points out - and as has also already been discussed above on this page - the term "hoverboard" is trademarked in the US and UK and the use of that term as a generic description inherently ignores those trademarks. But if you wish to offer an opposing, legitimate dictionary - (not the Urban Dictionary) - which defines these specific devices as "hoverboards," then, I suspect, folks will be happy to revisit this question. But until then, there is no real basis for WP unilaterally legitimizing that term. Per WP:POVNAMING, we've currently gotten it right. The term is included among those referenced in the lead, but it is not given undue/excessive weight. Because that, as has also already been noted above, would violate NPOV. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:7974:3BC8:66A7:F165 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I object to your unilateral assertion that consensus has been reached. There has clearly been a continuing, long-term discussion in regard to this issue. In order to avoid editwarring, I request that you restore the template to the article in good faith.
- While dictionaries are a useful source of information, they are not the only reliable source. We are required to reflect usage in English language reliable sources as a whole, not just what dictionaries say. A quick review of the sources used in this very article shows usage of the term "hoverboard" to describe these devices: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] A substantial amount do use the term as an "accurate term", whether in headlines or in text.
- I am not arguing for a change to the article title, or that "hoverboard" be given undue prominence. Whether the term is trademarked or not is irrelevant to whether it is commonly used in reliable sources. (NPOV requires us to reflect usage in reliable sources, regardless of what terms are, or are not, trademarked.) In fact, many trademarks end up genericized. My point is that, in reliable sources, the term has become one of a few commonly used terms to refer to these devices, and per policy, the article should adequately reflect that -- not treat "hoverboard" as some kind of second-class term that doesn't really, actually mean this device. That's not what the sources show.
- As a compromise proposal in regard to the lede, I propose removing "also commonly referred to" and bolding "hoverboard", with a brief footnote addressing terminology and wikilinking to hoverboard. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I fail to see what your objection is based upon. I correctly stated that consensus had been reached that these devices are "hoverboards" only in the colloquial sense, but not in the literal one. You are certainly free to disagree, but that is a fact. Just as it is a fact that this is also the consensus. Indeed it is also a fact, that you are the only editor who seems to believe these devices are "hoverboards" in the factual, literal sense. And that's fine. But again, by definition, CONSENSUS does not require unanimity. As such, your lone, factually unsupported objection, is not a sufficient basis for restoring the template. You also failed to address the fact that another article titled hoverboards already exists - and it describes an entirely different device. Per TITLE, no two articles can have the same title. Also, while we're on the subject, please review WP:UCRN, which states: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Also: "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." So in both cases, not overemphasizing the term "hoverboard" is not only not a violation of NPOV - it is entirely consistent with policy. In fact, it's actually dictated by policy.
- Regarding your response about dictionaries, I'll simply point out that OED is a descriptive English language dictionary. It is the only source of its kind currently in the article and its value is instructive, since the correct terminology for this device is clearly an issue. All the other reliable sources are about the vehicle, but they are not, primarily, about the name of the vehicle. Yet, even when they mention the name "hoverboard" - they do so acknowledging the lack of a definitive name.
- Proving that point, regarding the sources in the article that you referenced, I strongly recommend that you give each of them more than the "quick review" you admitted you afforded them. One also refers to them as "self-balancing, two-wheeled scooters"; while another calls them a "self-balancing electric scooter"; and one even says "Hoverboards - in reality self-balancing electric scooters". Still another, curiously, calls them "Electric scooter hoverboards, or mini-segways"; while another actually says "Beginning Jan. 1, 2016, hoverboards will be categorized as “electrically motorized boards”. So you have mischaracterized each source - as none of them definitively call the device a "hoverboard" - as you claimed.
- Finally, with regard to your compromise of "removing "also commonly referred to" and bolding "hoverboard", with a brief footnote addressing terminology and wikilinking to hoverboard" I'll just offer a brief history of how we evolved to the current language, which is, of course, always up for revision. As the edit log will attest, the use of the term "hoverboard" has been controversial in this article from the beginning. Prior versions, which I supported, used the term "colloquially referred to as" or "erroneously referred to as." But it was felt by editors that they were too biased for the lead - even though both fell within LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." But consensus prevailed, and they were both removed. But as it's certainly a reasonable compromise, I will bold "hoverboard."
- Although, I will note that, once bolded, because of the Wikilink, it will already be the one word that jumps out to the reader in the first paragraph of the lead, inherently giving it undue weight. Especially with no explanation included of the controversy of using the term there. So this may be revisited by other editors. But for now, I'll do it and we'll see.
- As for the rest, I do believe you have already condensed this article far too much: making it difficult, if not impossible, to find any substantive information in it without relying on the source links. Articles should stand on their own, with the links only used if the reader requires much more information. Condensing articles purely for "style" and as a result, sacrificing substance, is not what an encyclopedia should be in the business of doing. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:7974:3BC8:66A7:F165 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I see you've reverted the compromise I agreed with of bolding the word in the lead. Having already expressed concerns that doing so might be undue, I'm fine with that. It was my understanding of want you wanted. But since you've reverted it to how it read, I don't see what's different between what's already there and what you want. Unless you've reconsidered your previous position. Thanks. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:7974:3BC8:66A7:F165 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Couldn't we go with a shorter title like this? I don't see a need to specify a wheel count unless there is a separate article about ones with different wheel count. Is there a self-balancing one-wheeled board article or something?
Even if someone did make such a thing (kewl) it could easily be addressed in a small section with the majority focusing on the more popular 2-wheeled ones. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since I originally commented on this several months ago, it still doesn't appear that we have an acceptable, agreed upon, name for them. It's obvious that they don't actually "hover," yet "hoverboards" seems to have become the most popular generic term for them. So what do we call something, when it's being called that which it clearly isn't? Especially, when that name is already in use and describes something entirely different? Also keeping in mind that our job is only to report what is reliably sourced, not to make definitive judgments ourselves. So it's not our right to arbitrarily start calling it a "self-balancing one-wheeled board" or a "non-hover hoverboard" or "that no-handle riding thing that can spontaneously explode - if you don't fall off and bust your ass first," or some other made up name. Then what's the answer? Still no clue. X4n6 (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The answer is to use, as you say, "the most popular generic term" in reliable sources. Parenthetical disambiguation solves the issue of the same term being used to describe multiple things. However, other editors have a different view on the topic. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi James, while you did quote one phrase from my comment, you also omitted the whole next sentence: "So what do we call something, when it's being called that which it clearly isn't?" As this is still largely unsettled, I still see no need, or advantage, to rushing in to "try" to settle it. Unless and until a legitimate dictionary comes along and says we're now ok with calling it this word that 1) describes something it doesn't do; and 2) is already in use by something else; then I just see no urgency in jumping in, prematurely or capriciously, into the fray. Especially now that these things, whatever you call them, have currently fallen into disrepute because of safety concerns. Let's just wait at least until the bugs have been fixed, the safety concerns have been resolved, and public officials have signed off on their use again. By then we'll have plenty of info to help us figure out what's closest to a definitive definition. I'm certainly not as invested in this as other editors, but, objectively, I do think it's pretty clear that we still ain't there yet. X4n6 (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 22 February 2016
Self-balancing two-wheeled board → Self-Balancing Scooter – UL standard 2272 calls these "Self-Balancing Scooters". "Self-Balancing Scooter" gets 771,000 Google hits, while "Self-balancing two-wheeled board" gets only 6,250 hits. -- Callinus (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 21:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Strongly Disagree X4n6 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment. Per UL's own website "UL certifies, validates, tests, inspects, audits, and advises and trains." However, it does not name the items that it tests. Also, Google hits is not a definitive metric. Plus it also runs counter to several policies and guidelines like WP:GSNR, WP:GYNOT and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Search engine raw hit counts should never be relied upon to establish either name recognition or notability, per WP:HITS and WP:GOOGLELIMITS.
As has been discussed for months on this page, there is still no definitive, agreed-upon, name for these devices. If anything, "Hoverboard" comes closest - but for now, we've correctly rejected that name too. But if we were to name it anything, using this metric, that term gets 21,800,000 hits on Google, blowing the term requested here out of the water by a factor of 28 times more popular! But just as we've wisely shown restraint with that term, so must we here. Since it would still be premature for us to proactively and definitively just select a name where none currently exists. That is not our place and it is a violation of WP:BALL. Finally, as there is no commonly accepted name, per WP:OTHERNAMES, we should leave the article title as is. So at this time, the requested move should either be withdrawn, or denied. X4n6 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose current proposal; the proposed title should not be in title case as it is a generic, not a proper, name. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @James Allison: you opposed the proposed title on grounds of title case/sentence case, but what is your opinion of it other than that? Do you favour the current title of "Self-balancing two-wheeled board", or do you think "Self-balancing scooter" (sentence case) would be a better title? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support move to Self-balancing scooter. As X4n6 notes, the most common term appears to be "Hoverboard", but the primary topic for that is still the Back to the Future concept, and if the choice is between moving it to Hoverboard (wheeled transport) or similar, versus moving to some other commonly used name, then we'd rather choose the other name per WP:NATURAL. Of the other available names (Swegway, Self-balancing unicycle, and Balance board are others I've heard), Self-balancing scooter is probably the most common, and is certainly better than the current awkward and verbose title. As James Allison rightly mentions, the name should be in sentence case, not title case, per WP:TITLEFORMAT as it isn't a title or proper noun. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Response. Perhaps it would be useful for those commenting here to review the previous discussions on this page about this question, as it appears some folks haven't read them. As required by WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, there seems to be both precedent and consensus that, while the current name is admittedly imprecise, it needs to remain for now. As no other name has emerged that is definitive. It makes no sense to incrementally replace one imperfect title with another. That's why I suggested we all wait for the market to identify a correct name, not editors. Once they are declared safe and legal again, the market and appropriate governmental agencies will determine an appropriate name. Then we can rightfully revisit this and have a full and fully informed discussion. But not before that. Any judgment we made now would be completely arbitrary and would likely be changed again anyway after the market and those agencies decide. X4n6 (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)