Talk:Fuel saving device/Archive 1

Archive 1

user:JzG removed

• http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm US Patent #1,750,354

J. D. Redding 21:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

... because it should have been linked with {{US patent}} instead, which I did. [1] --Interiot 22:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Great ... i think that would be good .... but there is other information available @ http://www.rexresearch.com/pogue/1pogue.htm too (eg., Simon de Bruxelles) ... but let's not have information stand in the way of removing facts ... J. D. Redding

devices that worked

"out of 104 fuel efficiency devices tested by the EPA, only seven showed any improvement in efficiency" imo it's very important to known which products are those 7 that worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.15.234 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Fuel saving devices -- Petecarney (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Fuel saving devices and Aftermarket fuel economy device seem to have substantiallly the same subject matter. Should they be merged? If so which title should be retained, or should there be a new one? Please make your views known. --Petecarney (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Fuel Saving Devices. Both articles are in need of substantial rewrite for encyclopædic tone, content, and structure, though Fuel Saving Device is in less-bad condition than Aftermarket fuel economy device. As for the title; "Aftermarket" is unnecessary. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge I support a merge as these topics are redundant. However I have to disagree with Scheinwerfermann, I think that the "aftermarket" part of the title is important. "Fuel Saving Devices" would have include any design feature intended to improve economy including stock components like variable valve timing or cylinder deactivation. Currently both articles are messy, but I would have to support Aftermarket fuel economy device as a merge target. --Leivick (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge, of course. There's a page at alloy wheel, but not aftermarket alloy wheel, because the only difference between them is where they're sold. We don't need to differentiate article subjects on that basis—a simple sentence within the article saying that there's a market for retrofitting such devices is sufficient. --DeLarge (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear consensus. Although Fuel Saving Devices has been approved, the simple title Fuel saver seems to be most often used in the media to refer to these devices, and google give ten times more hits than the alternatives. So, if noone objects to that title I'll merge these two articles to the new title Fuel Saver in a few days. Otherwise I'll merge to Fuel Saving Devices. Petecarney (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I do not agree with a title shift to Fuel saver. It is vague, ambiguous, and requires context to be meaningful. It's suitable as the headline for an advertisement or a size-limited newspaper headline, but not as the title for an encyclopædia article. Fuel saving device is substantially better, and Fuel saving device (automotive) or Automotive fuel saving device would be better still. Keep in mind we have an excellent system of disambiguation pages and redirects, so people who happen to type "Fuel saver" into the search box can be directed to the article, even though it bears a different (and more descriptive and specific) title. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the best course for now is to do the merge into the better of the two existing titles, "Fuel saving devices" and consider dropping the "s" or other title suggestions as a separate debate while the task of developing the text of the article can go on in parallel. Petecarney (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Whatever which title we wind up with, per naming conventions it should be singular. For now, let's go ahead with the merge. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Electronic devices/Fuel Doctor FD-47

John Nevard, I have reverted your (mangled, partial) unmerge of the stub article you created about the Fuel Doctor FD-47. The content definitely belongs here in this article; as you and I seem to agree, the FD-47 is one of a great many spurious electronic "fuel saving devices" that have been marketed, tested with no good result, investigated, and the makers prosecuted, etc. I also agree with you that the FD-47 should not make up the whole of the Electronic Devices section of this article. Where we disagree is what to do about it. Please keep in mind that the status of most articles on Wikipedia, including this one, is unfinished. Removing content from an article just so that it's not the only content in the article in its particular section is the wrong way to do it. The right way is to expand the section! When the section grows too large and makes the article unwieldy, that is when sections should be split off into their own articles. Think of it this way: An article of a broader topic (such as fuel-saving devices) is an incubator for articles of narrower topics (such as specific types of devices), which in turn are incubators for yet narrower topics (such as particular devices). I can understand the attachment you might feel to the FD-47 article, because you created it, but on its own not only does it almost certainly sit there materially unimproved in perpetuity, but it also is open to the very apposite question of why we have an article for that device when there are scads of other specific devices, equally widely written up, equally demonstrated to have no effect, equally under scrutiny for fraud, etc. The question is one of notability. The FD-47 material you collected is of excellent quality and it'd be a shame for its presence and development to get tied up in squabbles over notability; it contributes much more robustly to the encyclopædia as part of this comprehensive article than it does off in its own backwater stub. Judging by your contributions to this and other articles, it seems to me you are amply capable, in concert with other editors, of expanding the Electronic devices section of this article so that the FD-47 is not the only such device discussed. Have at it! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 'attached' to the article. I feel it meets the criteria for independent notability, and you merged it into the present article without discussion. If you have a problem with the fact that I didn't unmerge the talk page, I'd really rather you reverted that too. Nevard (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. The drudgery of a formal deletion proposal for your separate stub article on the FD-47 is not something I look forward to. It would put me, you, and a bunch of other editors to unnecessary administrivial work and the consensus would very likely be "merge into Fuel saving device. If you really wanna press the point, that's your prerogative, but before you do I'm asking you, from one good-faith contributor to another, to take a step back and consider the greater purpose of improving the quality of the encyclopædia as a whole. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And I'm asking you to consider the greater purpose of improving the encyclopedia by restoring a article that is independently notable and represents good quality on its own, which can't really be said for this article. Nevard (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems we have a disagreement over how to better the encyclopædia. To my mind, this article and the encyclopædia as a whole are improved when this article is improved, which happens when the very good info on the FD-47 you gathered is incorporated in this article. If it is separate in its own stub…that's it. It doesn't seem very expandable beyond what you put together, does it? But perhaps you're right and I'm being too presumptuous and moving too quickly. Because this discussion spans what was and might again be two articles, here are some links for others who might join in this discussion. here is the stub that I merged into this article in this edit in conjunction with a fair amount of other article cleanup and improvement. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that we don't disagree on the independent notability of the device concerned. Given that I've added more information into the article since you merged it for the first time, and a very quick search reveals yet more potential references, the article would seem to me to have a great deal of further scope for expansion. Besides that, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that states that all articles less than the size of War and Peace should be merged or deleted. Nevard (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Er…the additional "reference" you've linked here is of no use (and is not in the language of this article -- did you read it?). In any given ref search, you will find a plethora of sources with (substantially) identical content; please keep in mindthat notability is not measured by how many references you can pile up that happen to mention the subject of the article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to know you consider non-English references of no use. You will be removing them from all the articles that use them, of course? Nevard (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on non-English sources (WP:NONENG) doesn't prohibit foreign-language sources — but it prefers sources in English, with English translations of foreign-language sources where feasible. In any case, this particular source (in Italian) appears — as best I can tell — to be simply an advertisement or promotional piece, and as such is not really of much use (especially since comparable material can surely be had in English). As for the question of article size, the policy certainly doesn't require articles to be huge, but WP:Merging#Rationale says that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." — a state of affairs which, IMO, applies in this case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As I noted before, that source is but one of many in [2] a number of excellent sources from Italy. As material was removed in the process of merging it into this article, that rationale just doesn't hold up. Nevard (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reference, it's a press release reprint. It contains no analysis whatsoever and is therefore of little or no value. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevard, let's stay focused and not get sidetracked: the notability of a subject is not a function of the number of sources you can find that mention it. It doesn't look to me as if there's any aspect of the FD-47 that is not amply covered by the existing refs. We've got the design and construction of the device, the manufacturer's claims, the results of several dissections and tests, the legal action against the maker…all well supported by good quality refs. What else do you imagine can be said about this device? I don't doubt you could find eight or ten additional refs for each already-supported assertion, but that would not improve or expand the coverage, and it would not bolster the notability of the device. Please also take care when choosing your tone here in the discussion. The material removed was inapposite; we needn't know the identity of the law firm involved in the legal action against the makers of the FD-47. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C17:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right.. it is after all only material from an agency that runs the motoring websites for La Stampa and MSN Italy. Just not good enough. Nevard (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a cuppa tea and adjust your tone. When you get defensive and snarky and sarcastic like this, it undermines your position and makes you look like a tendentious article-owner. Also, mind the indent hierarchy. It takes only a quick moment to make it right so the conversation is easily followed. Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw the listing in WP:3O and came here to have a look. In my opinion, the Fuel Doctor FD-47 is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article and, in contrast, fits very appropriately within a subsection of the Fuel saving device article. There isn't nearly enough material here about the FD-47 for this device to merit its own separate page. If and when a significant amount of additional material (specifically dealing with the FD-47) can be found, it might be appropriate to reconsider the current state of affairs. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge and redirect is a perfectly valid (and in my opinion much preferred) alternative to speedy deletion or full AdD - especially were a suitable target article exists to merge content into. In this case I think Scheinwerfermann made exactly the right call. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1