Talk:Coil (disambiguation)

Coil band

According to last.fm, COIL is simply an alias of Chihiro Harada, not an actual band. http://www.last.fm/music/Chihiro+Harada

Definition at head of disambig

Copied from User talk:DieSwartzPunkt

Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC carefully. By definition, where the disambiguation page includes "(disambiguation)", there is a "primary topic", which in this case is coil. If you do not think that topic is primary, then propose a move to change that. However, while there is a primary topic, the page should be formatted according to WP:DABSTYLE and WP:DABPRIMARY. Look at the disambiguation pages for other examples of primary topics given there. In each case, the primary topic is on the introductory line before the listing of other topics. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Coil is the primary topic. The primary topic is a simple coil (just like the illustration that you keep removing). The electrical coil is a specific use of the coil and is thus a secondary topic. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, if you do not think coil is the primary topic, then propose a move. older ≠ wiser 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What would you suggest moving it to? Coil is the primary topic and the page is called "Coil (disambiguation)". This covers both non-electrical and electrical coils perfectly. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I would not move it at all. You seem to think that it is not the primary topic. If you do agree that coil is the primary topic, then I don't understand why you want to ignore the guidelines for how to format the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 13:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. Why do you want a definition at the head of the article that only addresses one of the subsets of of what a coil is? There is nothing in WP:MOSDAB or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that requires this strange notion. Even the Wiktionary link at the article head leads to a 4 part definition only one of which mentions an electrical coil. In fact the first overall definition is almost word for word what you keep removing from the disambig page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've already pointed out to you the specific section in WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB that prescribe formatting for primary topic disambiguation pages. You appear not to have read them very carefully. So let's go step-by-step.

• WP:PRIMARYTOPIC defines a primary topic within the context of Wikipedia, with the conclusion If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page. That is the case with coil, the electromagnetic usage. If the electromagnetic usage were not the primary topic within the context of Wikipedia, then that page would have a different title, such as coil (electromagnetism) or electromagnetic coil and the disambiguation page would not be at coil (disambiguation) but at coil. So once again, if you think the electromagnetic sense is not the primary topic, then propose a move.
• WP:DABPRIMARY describes how to format the disambiguation page when there is a primary topic. It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence and should not be mixed in with the other links. It then gives several examples of how the primary topic should be presented on the disambiguation page.

older ≠ wiser 14:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an electrical engineer of long standing, naturally, I would like to see the primary application of 'coil' to be the electromagnetic usage. But Wikipedia is not just a repository for electrical matters but for the broadest spectrum of man's knowledge. The concept of the 'primary' definition at the top of the coil disambiguation page being the electromagnetic use when six out of the seven sections on the page are nothing whatsoever to do with electricity or magnetism is absurd whatever anyone's interpretation of WP:PTOPIC is (and it is only a guideline and not obligatory so Bkonrad has no right to insist on this page conforming to whatever he believes it says).

Also, the default action of taking a reader to a discussion on the electromagnetic application of a coil when entering 'coil' into the search field is equally absurd. The electromagnetic coil is but one application of a coil. And even then it is a subset of the electrical applications (the coiled filament in an incandescent lamp for example).

The priority is the wrong way round. Entering just 'coil' in the search field should take the reader to this disambiguation page, after all he could easily be looking for one of the many other uses of 'coil' or maybe even a specific type of electrical coil, of which there are 25 disambiguated from here. For the sake of clarity, the article title Coil should be made more specific as to the type of coil to which it is referring. A better title might be (for example) "Coil (electromagnetic)". I note that there already is a redirect if one enters "Electromagnetic coil" in search.

Just looking in a couple of technical dictionaries, they start out by explaining that a coil is anything wound in a helix or a spiral and then goes on to explain that an electromagnetic coil is but a specific application. In fact the only reference material that I can find that embarks immediately into discussing electromagnetic coils are electrical text books (no surprise there). Wikipedia is not purely an elecrical reference work. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, if you do not think the electromagnetic sense of the term is the primary topic, please propose a move. So long at the electromagnetic sense is at coil, that is the primary topic within the context of wikipedia. Disambiguation pages are internal navigational tools for Wikipedia and do not disambiguate usage of terminology on the Internet or dictionaries or elsewhere. If there is consensus that the electromagnetic sense is not the primary topic, then it should be moved and the disambiguation page placed at the base name "coil". Until that situation changes, the guidelines for formatting primary topic disambiguation pages is quite clear. older ≠ wiser 16:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you are quick at accusing others of not reading WP:PTOPIC, have a trot over there, where it states quite clearly that it is an editing guideline. Guidelines are never concrete and even the heading states that common sense should be used.

I was not specifically stating that either of you was right or wrong, but I did express a view that the current definition at the head of this disambig page is absurd given its full context. "Common sense" dictates a less restrictive definition. It would appear that I am not alone in this view, whereas you do seem to be (currently) alone in yours. –LiveRail < Talk > 16:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, it is a guideline with good reason, and the advice given is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I don't see any good reason for an exception here. If the electromagnetic sense is not the primary topic for coil, then that page should be moved, and the disambiguation page moved to the base name and formatted accordingly to reflect the lack of a primary topic. However, at the present time, there IS a primary topic. You and perhaps DieSwartzPunkt appear to be making a case that the electromagnetic sense is not the primary topic, but until the page is moved, there is no good reason to ignore the guideline. older ≠ wiser 16:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Can I help by trying to clarify? Wikipedia (WP:MOSDAB etc) allows two alternative scenarios:

1. There is a primary topic for "Coil". The dab page goes at Coil (disambiguation) and starts with a brief definition of that primary topic with a bolded link ("A coil is ..."), followed by "Coil may also refer to:...". This is the current situation
2. Alternatively: There is no primary topic for "Coil". The disambiguation page goes at Coil and starts with "Coil may refer to: ... "

If anyone believes that the current situation is wrong, ie that there is no primary topic for "Coil", the correct action is to propose a multiple move of Coil to another title (possibly Electromagnetic coil) and of Coil (disambiguation) to Coil. For how to do this, see Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_multiple_page_moves. There will be a discussion, and a decision will emerge: an admin will then make any necessary page moves.

I hope this helps: any dab page which doesn't fit either of the above patterns is likely to be corrected by any passing editor. PamD 18:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Illustration

In addition, disambiguation pages should not contain images, with only rare exceptions where the image helps to illustrate the ambiguity such as Congo (disambiguation) and Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 13:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Very likely. However, I did not add the image in the first place, but it keeps reappearing with each revert. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coil (electromagnetism) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coil which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

JHunterJ keeps adding a disambiguation page cleanup tag to this page without providing any clue as to what precisely he believes needs cleaning up. In his recent revert he claimed that the tag was in response to a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. In fact there is no such request at that location for such a tag to be added, beyond a statement from JHunterJ himself that he has added it. The tag documentation itself recommends, "When adding this template, it would be helpful to provide specific reasoning as to what needs to be cleaned up, either in your edit summary or on the talk page of the disambiguation page. Alternatively, simply perform the cleanup yourself.".

JHunterJ has placed in the edit summary "Partial title matches are an obvious problem". Titles are a feature of the articles linked to and not of the disambiguation page. It is therefore completely unclear what JHunterJ believes needs improving (beyond the proposed title change which is already under discusion elsewhere and thus outside of the scope of such a tag). As I have already requested and as the tag recommends, it would be very helpful if JHunterJ provided some sort of a clue here as to what cleanup he believes needs to be performed (beyond the current proposals and some vague reference to linked titles). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Partial title matches are defined at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches. Essentially, disambiguation pages should only link to pages treating topics that might be called, for example, "coil" or close variants (e.g. "Cóil", "coiling"); they should not normally link to things that have coil as a part of their name but that are not called "coil" (e.g. "The Coil of Sihn"). Cnilep (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned up the obvious partial title matches (which was indeed a clue). Directly before my statement at the project talk page there was indeed a request from another user to clean up this dab. But I have simply performed the cleanup myself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)