Talk:Self-balancing scooter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edits by 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C9CA:26B5:E9A5:76FB

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.

Regarding ShopSwegway, if you'll notice, it has been an ongoing issue here, here, here and no doubt, many others. But, of course, you are correct, and I'll remove the "Shop." In the interest of comity, I've also restored several rebrands. But we should likely still update their 3rd party sources.

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)

"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)

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)

self-balancing board

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

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Self-balancing scooter (non admin closure). Aside from caps issues, there seems to be a consensus for a move. The argument that the market has not fully made up its mind in terms of what to call the subject bears little weight, as they certainly aren't calling it "Self-balancing two-wheeled board" either. The argument for "hoverboard" is not convincing as of right now, if only due to limited comment on it, but this judgment should not be taken as a discouragement to opening another RM to consider some variant of "hoverboard" in the future.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

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)
• Support without caps: Self-balancing scooter seems to be a better descriptive name that's in use. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment. This is exactly why changing the term prematurely: before the market, the industry and the appropriate government agencies reach consensus, is so unwise. Especially, changing the term to "self-balancing scooter." As it turns out - now there is already a device calling itself a "self-balancing scooter." And quite clearly, it bears no resemblance to the device we're still discussing. X4n6 (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support without caps: Self-balancing scooter per Dicklyon. Baking Soda (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. If, as asserted in § Proposed edits above, the vast majority of the reliable sources in this article do use the term "hoverboard", that would be an argument for Hoverboard (scooter), per WP:COMMONNAME. I see that the term "Scooter" is very ambiguous, and there are several different types of "ground scooters". – wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Commonly (though erroneously)"

@James Allison: The entire Terminology section, of more than 2700 characters and nearly a tenth of the article, makes a strong case for the use of the word "hoverboard" to describe these devices as being erroneous, including a rather expert statement to that effect by an editor of the OED. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the main points of the article, and this certainly appears to be a main point. I see nothing in the discussion above that would preclude the rewording "also commonly (though erroneously) referred to as a hoverboard". Care to explain your reasoning? General Ization ^Talk 01:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Also please note that reflecting the content of the article and its sources accurately should not prompt an accusation of a failure to reflect NPOV. General Ization ^Talk 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The section you refer to merely "makes the case" that there is debate over what term to use to describe these devices. Many of the article's sources use the term "hoverboard" without qualification, others do not. Reflecting that debate, the introduction qualifies the term "hoverboard" as "commonly used". There is no external consensus on what is correct and incorrect. There have even been entire news articles on the debate over terminology. To say that one of the terms used is "erroneous" is inappropriate synthesis that is not supported by external sources. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 01:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick scan of the reference section shows that about 55 of the 70 references include the term "hoverboard". Given that, I don't think we should come to the conclusion that this usage of the word is incorrect. We could report that some say it's not right though, if we have sources that dispute the validity of this use of the term. wbm1058 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• I feel compelled to note this is not a new discussion here. I just re-read this entire talk page and found it really interesting how little everything has changed all these months later. But weighing in here, I actually found something one IP wrote that pretty well sums up my view here. That person wrote:

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.

If anything has changed since that was written months ago, I think it's that all the other brand names have pretty much given way to the word "hoverboard," any trademark concerns notwithstanding. But even though it's not an accurate word, it's undoubtedly the word that's currently in the most widespread use. So I think we have an obligation, as noted in LEAD, to both include the name and discuss its inaccuracy. X4n6 (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious that these devices do not hover in the sense of floating in the air, and they only hover in the sense of lingering in one place when they are being stored in the owner's closet or garage. They are defined as a particular type of scooter, and scooters don't hover in the air. Do you think our readers are so stupid as to not intuitively understand this. Hoverboard has two meanings, and this is a valid, not erroneous, use of the second meaning.

You can search for US trademarks at http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/ – I find seven word marks containing the word "hoverboard". Two are dead, but five are active, including "Glidecraft hoverboards" (Electrically-powered motor scooters), "META hoverboard" (Electrically-powered motor scooters), and "Hoverboard by ZR". "Hoverboard Promotional Advertising" is an advertising agency. Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. registered it as "Electrically powered two wheeled scooter for terrestrial human transportation." No one company has exclusive use of the word. wbm1058 (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is the Google Ngram for "hoverboard" (1800–2008)

Appears that some usage in fiction dates back to the 1820s.

More recently, "hoverboard" (1980–2008)

Usage related to the 1985 movie was relatively modest compared to usage that began around 2002.

Perhaps these scooters have become the primary meaning of "hoverboard" in recent years. I suppose it may be too soon to make the call on long-term significance, the other pillar of the WP:Primary topic guideline, so I'm content to leave the "Back to the Future" type of hoverboard primary for now. wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So what say you to: "A self-balancing scooter or self-balancing two-wheeled board, also commonly referred to as a hoverboard (though they do not hover in the sense of levitation), is a type of portable, rechargeable battery-powered scooter"? General Ization ^Talk 17:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I made a less-verbose adjustment to more clearly distinguish the type of "hoverboard". Here's an interesting article: I rode the 'Hoverboard' and now I wish levitating skateboards existed. This "non-levitating Hoverboard" is actually more like a skateboard, with just a single wheel. Would this scooter variant also be called a "self-balancing scooter"? wbm1058 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

While I know what you're going for, the phrase "a (non-levitating) hoverboard" has grammatical red flags for me from the parenthetical misuse. But even beyond that, no one actually calls them "a (non-levitating) hoverboard." A Google search returns nothing but WP - and Reddit. X4n6 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, responding to the comments above, when you have an authoritative source already contained in the article which pretty definitively states that they are not hoverboards, I don't see how you justify saying they are. You start getting into the territory of whether WP's job is to reflect common terminology - or create it. My view has always been to avoid a rush to judgment. But to simply report all sides of the issue in a balanced manner. We know what they're commonly called. We also know that's been called an inaccurate colloquialism. So we just report what we know. Until a recognized dictionary, encyclopedia, regulatory agency or the industry itself decides to call them "hoverboards" - as they will most likely soon have to. Then I'll be fully onboard. (Pardon the pun.) But until then, there is no hurry. I'm completely content to have this project say "this is what they're called even though this isn't what they are." You also forget the fact that there is actually a BTTF protype that does hover and is definitely not a scooter. Please read: How That Lexus Hoverboard Actually Works and watch the video. X4n6 (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So I searched for "non-levitating hoverboard" and found this comedy piece. People do seem to make a big deal about this, and it seems all those "non-levitating hoverboard" makers may be fighting a bit over the rights to use that name. Problem is, with so much common usage already, it may already be genericized.

"(non-levitating) hoverboard" means either "non-levitating hoverboard" or simply "hoverboard", in other words the "non-levitating" qualifier is usually not used. OK, I'm not sure this is bad grammar, but I'll try a different approach.

Anyhow Google shows non-hovering hoverboard to be more common than non-levitating, so let's go with that. I like the way The Economist handles it in this story: "non-hovering hoverboard" on first mention, and then simply "hoverboard" thereafter.

As these things seem to have been a short-lived fad, we'll just have to wait a while to see what the longer-term use and significance of these is. wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the adjustments you made to the lead and the work you've put into this. Also, tip of the cap for pulling the Daily Show clip. Good fun. But now, where does all this leave us? I'm afraid we're still no closer to a definitive answer. I'm also not convinced that these are a short lived fad. Remember, the fad died because they were recalled for safety issues, not because people stopped wanting them. They either couldn't find them, or decided to wait until the issues were addressed. So I'm inclined to believe that once those lithium ion battery/safety issues are resolved and places like Amazon, etc., begin to restock them, and airlines and universities, etc., lift their restrictions - (yes I know, lots of ifs) - like the Terminator, Rocky and the McRib - they'll be back. But until we finally break down and just call the things "hoverboards" like virtually everyone else does and without explanations, are you comfortable with leaving the lead as it is now, following your latest tweak? X4n6 (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I also just added quotes to the word "hoverboard" in the lead, to further distinguish it from the modifying phrase "non-hovering." It might also assist in making the boldface unnecessary. Thoughts? X4n6 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw that it was linked to before, and I was kind of reluctant to put the link there again. Usually you link to something in the lead to say what something is, not what it isn't. Just a plain link confuses readers because at the same time you're saying that it doesn't levitate, you're linking to the other article, which implies that this is a specific type of one of those (the hoverboard article is not a broad-topic article about all types of hoverboards including the scooter-ground-based type). Bolding it is the only thing that raises a flag to point out the difference. Bolding it makes clear that in this usage, "hoverboard" is a synonym of "self-balancing scooter". Ford Mustang is not a horse, and Ford Mustang does not feel obligated to link to the article about the horse, nor add special explanatory text explaining that the version made by Ford runs on four wheels, not legs, but they call it a "Mustang" all the same, even though that's "not correct". wbm1058 (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Quotation marks in English § Signaling unusual usage would be the rationale for the quotation marks. OK. The comedy video makes clear that this is still considered unusual usage. wbm1058 (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As far back as December 31, the article used the term "hoverboard" in bold and without linking. Interestingly, the edit log also shows an IP added the term "erroneously," only to have another IP remove it in the very next edit. Then on January 1, another IP added the quotation marks, also without linking. Finally, on January 7, yet another IP added the link. The point being that pretty much every incarnation has been tried here. So at this point, the only thing that seems reasonably certain, is that no matter what we do now, it'll soon get changed. X4n6 (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is all going in circles. Some editors may not like it, but any perusal of the article sources shows that these devices are commonly referred to as hoverboards by a large amount of the sources. The term should not be linked per WP:BOLDSYN, and it is not an "unusual" usage that needs quotation marks. One comedy video does not balance the large amount of sources. Saying it is "erroneous" does not reflect the article itself, where two dictionaries take two different sides on the issue. These devices are not "commonly referred to as a non-hovering hoverboard". The phrase "non-hovering hoverboard" is not in common usage, the term "hoverboard" is. I propose that the lead return to its state prior to this discussion, with a footnote after hoverboard noting the debated usage of the term (and possibly linking to the terminology section). Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 00:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, X4n6 kept moving the goalposts on me, and I was at a point where I felt I had to dig in and draw a line in the sand. The lead section is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, so maybe your footnote-link points to the problem – a failure to adequately summarize that section in the lead. There's gotta be a better way to do this than all our hacks including parenthetical (non-hovering) or not, bold or not, link or not, quote as "unusual" usage or not. Can we start with an agreement or rough consensus that calling this a hoverboard is no more incorrect than calling a car a mustang or a jaguar? wbm1058 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

No more or less incorrect, and I'd point out that a car can never be a mustang or a jaguar, though it could be a Mustang™ or Jaguar™. General Ization ^Talk 01:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This is already effectively a generic trademark, so it loses its proper name status and becomes lower case. The lead says it's commonly called a hoverboard, that's not the same as saying it's always called that. wbm1058 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure, wbm1058, how pulling the history of the many changes to the word "hoverboard" in the lead; agreeing with pretty much anything you wanted to do; and then simply offering the quotation marks with the log note: "Revert if it doesn't work for you," is somehow "moving the goalpoints" on you? If anything, I've been saying for some time that the current name, and article title, and current explanation of the term "hoverboard" in the lead, are all only temporary. Not even significantly better than the old title, or prior caveats - and likely to just end up being replaced with the word "hoverboard," anyway, based on common usage. Which James Allison has been relentlessly pushing for all these many months. Just as I've also said all along, that I'll wait for an official source(s) to definitively call it a "hoverboard," before I join the bandwagon. X4n6 (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What the heck is the problem with just admitting what these things are commonly called? How is "non-hovering" or "erroneously" relevant? Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." X4n6 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

So you think there's a prominent controversy around these things being called hoverboards, just because some people commented on the etymology and how the word was repurposed for this device that does not hover? That rises to "prominent controversy"? That seems to be the relevant question here. I saw no, it's not prominent, and not really a controversy. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Have you read the article and reviewed its sources? If so, it should be pretty clear that there is a "prominent controversy" on what to call them. And no consistency either. This talk page also provides pretty clear evidence of that. X4n6 (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I see the discussion of the etymology, and see you trying to make that into a controversy. What am I missing? Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Everything apparently. Like I said, the article, its sources and this talk page. Most notably, apparently for your purposes, where I am not involved. X4n6 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)`

OK, I'm missing all that. Who else thinks there's a prominent controversy in this topic? (and I mean about calling them hoverboards, not an argument between editors). Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made a cursory review of the sources, and again it seems that any comprehensive survey of the sources used in this article will tend to settle on "hoverboard" as the common name. Example: The Weird Origin Story of the Viral, Dangerous Hoverboard You can describe it as "Two Wheels Smart Self Balancing Scooters Drifting Board Electric" or some variant of that, but "The world has mostly decided to call it a hoverboard." There's a source that's flat-out telling us that's the common name. Your move, X4n6. Show me a source that says something to the effect of, "a few manufacturers and users have called it a 'hoverboard', but the world has mostly decided to call it a self-balancing scooter." wbm1058 (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Since you specifically asked for me to weigh in, wbm1058, I'll respond. Otherwise, I was perfectly prepared to recuse myself from the other editor's inquiry. But it does appear that you've misunderstood my argument, so let me give it one last shot. First, I've never supported calling them "self-balancing scooters." To the contrary, my record on that should be pretty clear, both here and in the recent move review I requested. I've also consistently agreed that they're commonly called hoverboards. But I've also said, that name is a colloquialism - a convenient name used in the absence of a uniform name. I've also noted, as have many other editors - and sources - that the name is inaccurate, for reasons that we've hashed and rehashed. I've just said that I think our use of the name should be authoritative - and reflective of authoritative sources, which it isn't and can't be. Some have pointed to multiple sources that use the term, but no one has argued in those cases that the term was anything more than the word's colloquial usage. In fact, in many of those sources, they expressly use more than one name for the devices and lament the fact that there is no universally accepted word to describe them. So all I've ever said is: when a regulatory/governmental agency calls them hoverboards, or when most of the major manufacturers do, or even when a reputable dictionary/encyclopedia definitively does; then I'll be totally comfortable that we've done our best due diligence here to get it right. Then I'll support that word's usage here, without any exception or explanation attached; and without reservation. I believe that's a pretty reasonable ask. Our job here is to try to get it right. Not kinda, sorta right because "lotsa other people are doing it like that" right. Our standard should be higher. We are an encyclopedia. They aren't, and don't try to be.

By the way, your article was dated back in June of last year and it's also nothing new. It's been in the article since December 13, 2015. Obviously, a lot has changed with these devices since the article wrote about them last June. By example, even more recently, in September of last year, the Oxford English Dictionary, which calls itself "the definitive record of the English language", released an entire discussion on the word hoverboard and why they "are hoverboards in name only: the word is currently registered as a trademark in the US and the UK." The OED report has also been in the article since October 14, 2015. But it also notes: "Whether these devices take off (while not actually taking off) remains to be seen; certainly, they haven’t been round long enough to be included in the new OED entry." But that was also September of last year. So I'd be very surprised if that decision isn't revisited with this September's edition. But the discussion here has gone on for months, long before I was involved. So attempting to finger-point at me is nonsense. I just happen to agree with much that's been said by other editors since this article was written. Anyway, I don't know if all this has made my position any clearer, but I really don't know how to explain it any better. Hopefully this helped. X4n6 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing said here suggests that there is any "prominent controversy" in the real world about this. Some different terms, and such discussion, that's all. Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

What's your definition of a "prominent controversy?" X4n6 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a definition, but I'm not seeing anything close to one. Where are the sources saying the name is controversial? A few discussions of the name's use and etymology hardly rise to the level of a prominent controversy. I see a bit of controversy between WP editors, but nothing like that in sources. And still no other editor agreeing with you on seeing a prominent controversy, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that's a pretty self-serving non-response. Without offering any standard, how would you even recognize a "prominent controversy" if you saw one? Various sources are calling these devices different things. Reliable sources are also expressly saying they're not what they're being called. Those are sources, not editors. I also see no one agreeing with your contention that this is not a problem. X4n6 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You're a piece of work. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Really? I'll consider the source: given the fact that you've created a vanity article about yourself here. But that apparently wasn't enough self-puffery, as you're also the last person to edit there, making damn sure the whole world knows about your latest award. So, how many policies does that violate, Dick? And who's the piece of work now? X4n6 (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stay on topic please, this is no place for ad hominem attacks.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Guess there are no mirrors in your world, huh. X4n6 (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

prominent |ˈprɒmɪnənt|

adjective

1 important; famous: she was a prominent member of the city council.

2 projecting from something; protuberant: a man with big, prominent eyes like a lobster's.

3 situated so as to catch the attention; noticeable: the new housing estates are prominent landmarks.

controversy |ˈkɒntrəvəːsi, kənˈtrɒvəsi|

noun (pl.controversies) [ mass noun ]

prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion: the design of the building has caused controversy | [ count noun ] : the announcement ended a protracted controversy.

@X4n6: I'm sure you can figure it out pretty easily from here.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It really was pretty easy to figure out before that, Insertcleverphrasehere. Especially since there are already two dictionary references in the article. Then again, it might have been more useful if you had cited your source(s). X4n6 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So is it easy or not? Because you keep dicking around Dicklyon asking him to provide you a definition of something that is pretty fucking straightforward.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you are reliably clueless. I asked for Dick's definition, not just any definition. Because Dick questioned a standard without providing one. Get it now? Probably not. But at this point you're just being a troll and I'm not feeding you anymore. So, poof! You're gone. X4n6 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop insulting other users, an argument from an ad hominem doesn't help your argument. You are being rather tendentious and I would suggest that you approach this talk page with the goal of improving the project, rather than of simply trying to get your way. I see others here trying to offer compromise, and to find reasonable solutions to the specific issue that was raised, all I see from you is a willingness to argue, and accuse others of misconduct/being trolls, etc.

On topic; if the sources are calling them hoverboards, then a hoverboard is what they are. Just because this isn't the same as the back-to-the-future concept of hoverboard doesn't mean that it is 'inaccurate'. And just because a few people have pointed out that they don't actually 'hover' in the sense of levitation out doesn't mean it is a "controversy".  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Forget it. You have been consistently obnoxious, abusive and uncivil. So your hypocrisy is off the charts in calling for anything less in response. Frankly, I can't be bothered. So until you apologize for your behavior, I'm under zero obligation to deal with you. Let alone take you seriously. X4n6 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry... What? When have I been abusive and uncivil? This is a pretty big accusation, so I'd appreciate what exactly you expect me to apologise for.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's time to close and drop this conversation. It's pretty clear when someone is "off his meds". Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thats not really that helpful Dicklyon. I agree that it is time to drop the conversation, however, I would appreciate X4n6 visiting my talk page to explain how and when I was "abusive and uncivil".  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

A quick scan of the article for "controversy" or "controversial" finds just one source using the term: “These toys have been very controversial so I would suggest if you or your family member have one, to keep an eye on where in the house it is charged and make sure there are no toys or flammable items around.” (Melbourne firefighters blame ‘controversial’ hoverboard for Strathmore house fire)

They are controversial because of safety concerns. Nobody has found a source stating that "calling these scooters by the name 'hoverboard' is controversial".

I suppose there may also be a controversy between manufacturers over who has the right to use the claimed trademark "Hoverboard" to name their scooters.

I'm content with the article as it stands. When I first saw this article, I objected to

commonly referred to as a hoverboard

but now with quotes around our controversial term, it's an acceptable compromise for now, in my opinion

commonly referred to as a "hoverboard"

– wbm1058 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think "hoverboard" should have a link, as it is linking to the other definition seems rather odd. Can we put it in quotes without the link?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree; the link violates the principle of least surprise as well as not being helpful in context. As the term is one of the common names used for these devices, it should be bolded. I don't see a need for quotation marks if the term is preceded by the phrase "commonly referred to", but I have no objection to their use either. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 19:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Hoverboard" name: Discussed in the Sources

Hey wbm1058 and James, many thanks for all the good work you've both done in this discussion. I've appreciated both of your contributions and differing points of view, so barnstars to both of you. I'm also comfortable with the current view of the lead, as of this writing.

But as the discussion related to the: "commonly... as;" as well as what the sources are saying; I've pulled several articles we haven't discussed: bolstering the conclusion that there continues to be significant debate about the word "hoverboard" as it's applied to these devices.

• This terrific January 8, 2016 article, entitled, "They're called hoverboards now, and there's nothing we can do about it" even defines a condition it calls: "Hoverboard Neurosis."

• Or this Washington Post article, entitled, "Your fancy scooter is cool, but it’s not a ‘hoverboard.’ Why don’t we have hoverboards yet?" which simply starts by saying: "This is a story about hoverboards, but let’s just get something straight. The name is a lie."

• This December 2015 article, entitled, 5 reasons you CAN call it a hoverboard even if it doesn’t hover defends the usage of the term "hoverboard" even as it says: "It has been riling people for a while now, but why oh why is the hoverboard referred to by such a name when it doesn’t actually ‘hover?’"

• Here's a pretty recent and detailed article, just released a couple weeks ago on April 16, called The rise and fall of the hoverboard, which talks about: "a "self-balancing electric scooter" (the semi-official name for hoverboards)."

• And this article, written just last Wednesday, called: "If You Have $15,000 You Can Buy a Hoverboard that ACTUALLY FLIES", where the writer actually says: "You know what really grinds my gears? Calling something a hoverboard when it doesn’t actually hover."

• Finally, you may have seen the news items this week, about the device which actually does hover. If not, here are a few to review. The first one in particular, because now the Guinness Book of Records is officially calling these new devices "hoverboards.":

• Confirmed: Franky Zapata sets new Farthest hoverboard flight record in France
• Flyboard Air nab world record for farthest hoverboard flight
• Flyboard Air looks to be the first true hoverboard
• Flyboard Air Hoverboard Can Go 93 MPH and Soar to 10,000 Feet
• Frenchman flies more than a mile on a hoverboard

So because this whole naming, yes "controversy" is still far from settled, I'm completely comfortable with whatever the consensus of the moment here dictates. Since, as with everything on this project, we should all be clear that this is far from something we can settle now - and it likely won't be settled for some time to come. I'll continue to look forward to those discussions. X4n6 (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK... what are you proposing? specifically what changes would you like to see with regards to this 'controversy'? (personally I would say that the writers are simply being pedantic, but to each his own)  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

These sources look like useful material to expand the terminology/etymology section. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, James. Would you like to do it or should I? Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

removal of sourced content

User:ViperSnake151 this edit removed a bunch of sourced content; it is not a simple "rewrite" per your first edit note, nor per your edit note when you reverted, does it express "the exact same key facts". Please explain why the names of the other manufacturers, the number of manufacturers, etc, should be omitted. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ViperSnake's edits were appropriate IMO. Not only did they correct various style and external link errors, they summarized the necessary information in an encyclopedic manner without delving into unnecessary detail. James (^talk/_contribs)

OK, I self-reverted but restored the name of the other company and the brand names. This article has been subject to efforts to promote certain brands and erase negative information about certain brands, so I was perhaps overly cautious there. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well done, everyone. I commend the three of you for your continued conscientious efforts to maintain and improve the article. Esp, to Jytdog for the reasonable discussion and self revert. As product names are regularly referenced throughout the article, I think it's reasonable to include them now, as long as they are specifically named in the RS. Hopefully everyone can live with that now. X4n6 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Self-balancing scooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161011232235/http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806%3Azkeyuj.2.6 to http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806%3Azkeyuj.2.6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225162903/http://housing.uark.edu/News/hoverboards.php to http://housing.uark.edu/News/hoverboards.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225222222/http://housing.osu.edu/articles/urds/79 to http://housing.osu.edu/articles/urds/79
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151225174939/https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30406464/malaysia-airlines-bans-hoverboards/ to https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30406464/malaysia-airlines-bans-hoverboards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's useful. All but one were fine. The uspto.gov one was not and I have removed the citation from the article entirely. PeterEastern (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Links from lead

Note that all the links have now been reintegrated back into the body of the article:

I have removed these links from the lead (references not encouraged in lead):

• New Yorkers can’t be bothered to walk anymore Reed Tucker. New York Post. August 20, 2015
• Amazon tells customers: Get rid of your exploding hoverboards Dan Hyde. The U.K. Telegraph. December 16, 2015
• Man Sues Hoverboard Maker Swagway Over Fire That Damaged His Home James Eng. NBC News. December 16, 2015
• Is The Popular Hoverboard The Most Dangerous Holiday Gift? CBS Detroit. December 29, 2015
• Hoverboard sparks house fire in Australia The Telegraph. U.K. January 5, 2015
• Meet the 'hoverboard' that got Wiz Khalifa arrested Rick Broida. Fortune. August 26, 2015
• Hoverboards seen hogging limelight at Gitex Shopper Naushad K Cherrayil. Gulf News. October 5, 2015
• 2-wheel electric scooters take off Robert A. Chronkleton. The Kansas City Star. September 20, 2015

• Why PeterEastern? You've unilaterally reconfigured a longstanding article with no discussion or consensus. I think this is a major mistake. We generally don't remove tons of reliable sources on the whim of a lone user. Please explain your rationale for doing this - and for doing it this way. X4n6 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• I have restored, reordered and simplified the major areas of concern. X4n6 (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Apologies if I have crashed onto the scene, I came by way of the Self-balancing unicycle article where I did a substantial amount of work over a week or so (without any engagement from others or pushback). My intention was to now engage with this and some of the other devices in the category Category:Personal transporters and then propose a more general Personal transporter article. Thanks for your edits in response to mine. All make sense. To be clear, I removed citations from lead as per WP:CITELEAD and parked them here to ensure that they didn't get lost without a better review. PeterEastern (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. A quick look at this page wouldn't show the protracted discussion and arguments over this article. It also was/is on several watchlists. With that in mind, I anticipated what I expected would be the reaction and tried to maintain both the good faith of your edits and the basic integrity of the article that was reached after extended consensus. Regarding the sources, moving them from the lead to this talk page really just orphans them. And they will also just get archived here. Since CITELEAD presumes sources aren't in the lead because they are also in the article, they should be restored where appropriate within it. Agreed? X4n6 (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

X4n6, right, see Talk:Self-balancing scooter/Archive 1 for the previous protracted discussions and arguments over this article. Rather aggressive archiving parameters were set up for this talk page, which I've backed off so that all the most recent discussions aren't archived so quickly. wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow! As you say there was a firestorm of activity on this article some time back that has now all got archived. I did check the talk page, but didn't check the archive. It has certainly been appropriate to adjust the archiving settings - thanks Wbm1058. What I will do now is review all the citations that I moved here earlier and reintroduce any with notable content back into the body of the article (associated with appropriate text) over the next week or so and highlight which ones are indeed left as orphans. I also plan to do more work on the patent war around this product, where there are more recent developments that are not reflected in the article. As you will note from my recent contributions I am also working on other articles in Category:Personal transporters. PeterEastern (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that I have just done some more work on the article, in particular boiling the entomology section down to the core content and cleaning up the history. I also reviewed the UK legal position. Over the coming few days I will now do a comprehensive review of all the citations, both the ones in the article and above, checking that they still work and that they are appropriate. PeterEastern (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I have completed by review of citations which all work now and have added all of the ones above that came from the lead back into the body of the article. PeterEastern (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to merge legal content into Personal transporter

This merge has now been completed PeterEastern (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I propose to merge the 'Use and regulation by country' section of this article into a new legal section for the recently created Personal transporter article, along similar content from self-balancing unicycle, electric skateboard and electric kick scooter. This is to avoid duplication and fragmentation of content for various devices that are treated very much the same by the law.

If you wish to discuss this then please do so on Talk:Personal_transporter#Merging_legal_content to keep all the discussion in one place.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to respond here, because any discussion on this article should stay on this talk page. Frankly, I think the article has become cluttered with entirely too much emphasis on regulation by geographic differences. Is this article about this device, or is this article about the regulations for this device on every continent and in as many countries as we can possibly source?

Peter, I respect the hard work that you've invested in this article, lately. I just think it has gone way too far in the direction that one editor wanted to take it. And, respectfully, not in the direction that I think is useful to most readers, most of whom, I really don't think care about regulations by geography.

They want to know about the device itself: its history, development, how it works, differences in design, cultural references, noteworthy incidents, notable companies, construction flaws, regulations for use on airlines and universities and the new generation of devices which no longer use lithium ion batteries. Each of those has way more utility, in my view, for the average reader, than the regulations in other countries or continents where they don't even live.

-- X4n6 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks X4n6, I think we are in agreement. If the legal content by territory gets moved the Personal transporter article (and there is value to having it somewhere in my opinion) then it rebalances the articles for particular classes of device (such as this one) and allows more attention to be given to all the types of issue and content that you wish to see added. PeterEastern (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. If that is the end result, then I would support the move. It's not that I don't think the info has value. I simply think it is one area that now dominates the article, when so much more is of equal or greater importance. Also, it's not even so much that the areas I mentioned above need to be added. Much of it was already in the article. It just needs to be restored. And updated where appropriate. X4n6 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's work on the basis that the move will go ahead. As such, would it be appropriate to now review the article against the version prior to my first edit and see what content has been lost? I would be happy to do a first pass on this unless you would prefer to. I can see certainly see some content that should come back. PeterEastern (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For starters, I still think the over-specificity of geographic regulations is a problem for me. And a potential distraction for readers. Is it really necessary to list the regulations by continents and then countries? I think we need to lose one or the other. For me, I think the continents listing is overkill, so I'll just condense the list with a blanket heading that accomplishes the same thing. X4n6 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made a few minor layout changes, per above. Hopefully, it's cleaner now. X4n6 (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. To be clear, we are in total agreement that the territory based legal information will move out of this article and into Personal transporter. I am in the process of preparing for that move by reviewing every legal comment on all the articles in Category:Personal transporters and I will then move anything that is generic to personal transporter, only leaving any device specific information in this article. What you have seen today is my preparatory edits. PeterEastern (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now completed the merge of legal information from this article, electric skateboard and self-balancing unicycle into the personal transporter article. It is still a bit raw and I will now work on the content in the single article over the coming weeks. PeterEastern (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Under the "See also" sections of both electric skateboard and self-balancing unicycle, you may want to link to the legal section in the personal transporter article. That way the reader will know where to look if he/she has an interest in this info. X4n6 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, or by a some other non-detailed approach. Will do. PeterEastern (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Scope

What is, and is not in scope for this article. For example:

1. Are units with handle bars within scope, for example this one.
2. And if they are, then are things like the the Segway miniPRO within scope?

I don't have a strong view either way, but want to ensure that we cover all the types of personal transporter is one article or other, and currently self-balancing devices with handles don't really seem to have natural home on WP. If these are not in scope here then what should the article title be for a suitable distinct generic article?

Thanks. --PeterEastern (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think the general view may be that this article is on this device. Other variations should be addressed elsewhere. Of course, we can always include links to those other articles. For example, I don't think the handled version should be reported in depth here, but I can't see that a brief mention with links to other articles about them and those other devices, would be excessive. X4n6 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

In support including 1 and 2 above within the scope of the article, the Crown Prosecution Service in the UK defined a self-balancing scooter as including segways, mini segways, Hoverboards and single wheel electric skateboards. Also... here are a bunch of devices with handles that are described as 'self-balancing scooters':

• Zero Scooter is the world’s first self-balancing scooter, combining the classic Vespa design with a Segway.
• Self Balancing XYQ8 "is one of the smallest and light weight upright personal transporter vehicles in the world ... handle bar can be adjustable according to your height"
• Xiaomi Ninebot Mini Self Balancing Scooter "Launched by Ninebot, a Xiaomi portfolio company, the Ninebot mini is a scooter without a handle. The beauty of this scooter is in the fact that it steers by detecting movements from riders’ legs."
• Airwheel S8 "To Compare the Airwheel S6 and S8MINI Self-balancing Scooters"
• China Scooter Price Cheap 2 Wheel Self Balancing Scooter (Picture shows handle)
• XYQQ Self Balancing Scooter- Black (Picture shows unit with large wheels and handle)

-- PeterEastern (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@X4n6:. Do you have a view on this? Unless there are any objections then I suggest we increase the article's scope to include 1 and probably also 2. PeterEastern (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I don't think the terms other folks are using justifies inclusion here. Otherwise, this would be the hoverboard article. On the other hand, one, relatively small, well-sourced section referencing those other devices would probably work. I just wouldn't want to see those devices share equal prominence here with the original device. That would be too much and would dilute the article, in my view. X4n6 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, but if we do see other more general information crowding the article, then I suggest that we spawn an article with a title to be agreed which means Hoverboard (the one with with wheels). To be clear however,I am not envisaging a load of new information, but am only trying to get the ontology clear for the devices. PeterEastern (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)]

@X4n6:. On reflection how about moving this article to Hoverboard (scooter) (which is currently a redirect to this article) and then create a new one here for the more generic category? I say that because inevitably the current article would morph considerably if the history section was to include the Segway PT and Segway mini and no doubt others as well. In addition, the Design and operation section would need to describe the various ways used to control them etc etc. Overall, I think it would take the article far from the current subject and as you say, loose the specifics relating to the hoverboard in the process which would be a shame. For the avoidance of doubt, the scope of Hoverboard (scooter) would be for unit without any handlebars controlled solely by the rider's feet. PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@PeterEastern: This is exactly what I was afraid of, frankly. It's clear that interest in this article has certainly waned from its salad days. But still, as a veteran of those contentious, nascent days (with the battle scars to prove it); I am loathe to support a major movement or title change - which is essentially what you're suggesting - without broader feedback than just 2 editors. Instead, I'd strongly recommend that first you RfC any such proposal(s). Possibly pinging all the folks who've provided substantial contributions on this talk page in the past. While that may not offer the speediest solution, it's the smartest; and likely the only way to avoid the hornet's nest of reaction that such broad changes may produce.

Specifically regarding your concerns about the other personal transporters, I honestly don't see the need for them all to be lumped together in one, huge and unwieldy mega-article. Segway Inc. has an article, which it seems to me from a cursory overview, does a reasonable job explaining the company - albeit with the overkill of every engineer and their mother's name being included in the infobox! (Good grief!) The major versions of this device could also warrant their own articles. But Segway PT, which you've obviously spent quite a bit of time on, honestly and in my opinion, suffers from the same problem I was concerned with here. There is no way to deny that article is now top-heavy and overloaded with "Use and regulation by country" minutiae. Unfortunately, it is no longer about the device itself. Now, it's clearly all about reporting the international regulations of that device to an obsessive, almost OCD degree. So much so, the article really should be renamed International Use and Regulations for the Segway PT. Because that's all it is right now.

By contrast, the Personal transporter article, which you've also worked on, looks good now. So I would really hate for you to make it top-heavy with regulation detritus, as well. You've become like a man obsessed on these series of articles lately, and while I applaud your enthusiasm, may I respectfully suggest that you take a little break from them for a bit? Let them breathe for a minute, Peter. Give other editors a chance to weigh in on the many contributions - and yes, major changes - that you've already made so far. I recommend doing that first - before trying to do even more at the moment. Remember: WP is a marathon - not a sprint. X4n6 (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The question I raise is a simple one. Should the scope of this article be limited to what are often referred to as hoverboards, or should it be expanded to cover all devices that now go by the title 'self-balancing scooters', which includes Segway PT, Segway minPro, hoverboards with handlebars etc. We appear to be of agreement that the scope of this article should not be expanded. Agreed?

Assuming this is the case, it begs another question. Does this article have the right title? I do understand your concerns about another contentious move (as can be seen in the archives from last time) and the need to consult widely, but languages are living things, and the language used for these devices has evolved in the past year and I suggest we need to consider another move in order to clear space for a wider discussion of different forms of self-balancing scooter. For the time being I have expanded the section on this subject on personal transporter to encompass this broader category, but in my view a separate article will be needed.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Since it appears you're now only interested in the questions you've posited, rather than also addressing my other concerns, I'll be brief. Yes, the scope should remain as is. The other devices can certainly have their own articles. But this one is not about them. And yes, while I agree the term "hoverboard" is now the more widely used colloquialism, we do already mention it in the lead. Also, to my knowledge, it is still neither the universal or definitive term for these devices. So I see no compelling reason to change the name of the article without first obtaining broader consensus. X4n6 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please.. I have limited my response to the topic of this thread. You have indeed raised many concerns above, which whilst valid points to discuss would in my view distract from the issue at hand, and should be raised as separate topics and in cases relate to other articles. For the time being however, given that we seem to be getting no closer to agreement, I propose to create an article of the title Self-balancing scooter (personal transporter) as a starting point for the broader definition of device. We can then see the two articles in the round and return to discuss any moves at that time. For clarity, I am now going to add a banner clarifying the scope of this article. Ok? PeterEastern (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Ok, so my proposed new article was not accepted, with the suggestion that I place the content in Personal_transporter#Self-balancing_scooter. PeterEastern (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Too generic a title for too specific a description

This article is titled "self-balancing scooter", which would indicate that the subject is about a class of personal transportation devices that perform the function of a self-balancing scooter (with "scooter" being a very generic term) — and yet, the definition is restricted to something very specific, "consisting of two motorized wheels connected to a pair of articulated pads on which the rider places their feet."

Then the article goes on to describe just one specific design that fits the definition in the lead. But there are others not covered:

• A Segway would be a self-balancing scooter, particularly since the platform described in the article was derived from it.
• The Solowheel Iota would fit the article's definition, only the footpads aren't between the two wheels, but on the outside. Also I'm seeing more and more people who have a one-wheeled version of that, which seems to be getting more popular (it reminds me of the wheel in BC (comic)).
• I have also seen (once, it made me do a double-take) this thing called an S-Walker, which is also two-wheeled but has the footpads fore and aft instead of side by side.

It may be a good idea to expand this article to cover a whole class of personal transporters that use self-balancing technology. The personal transporter article sort of does that, so I'm wondering if a merge is in order. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

iCarbot

Suggest an article about the related item iCarbot. BoldLuis (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

And hoverboard derivatives as HoverBike and HoverBag. BoldLuis (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)