Wikipedia

Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 6

< Talk:Heated tobacco product
(Redirected from Talk:Heat-not-burn product/Archive 6)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by QuackGuru in topic Proposal for title change
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Proposal for title change

Latest comment: 5 years ago114 comments13 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This has become an intractable wall of text, badly formatted RM requests, and people talking at cross purposes. As such I don't see much prospect of pulling any actionable consensus out of it. I suggest that the discussion regarding suitable terminology can continue outside of the RM process, and then a new proposal formed for a sensible alternative name, that people can support or oppose.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


Proposal for title change 1

Electric smoking system → Heat-not-burn tobacco product – The current title is original research. I propose the title be changed to the most recognized WP:COMMONNAME. The title Heat-not-burn tobacco product is the most commonly used name. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. feminist (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Strong Support to change title to Heat-not-burn tobacco product since it is the most commonly used name for this type of product. Other names are not as well known. See the Notes section for a list of verifiable synonyms. See "The term "heat-not-burn" refers to tobacco heated (at ~350 °C) by an electrically-powered element or carbon, not combusted (at ~800 °C).[11]"[1] The name "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" is most accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the RFC template and replaced with a standard requested move. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the proposed title is likely from tobacco industry marketing. Wikipedia should use the more neutral scientific terminology Heated tobacco product (examples: WHO, Tobacco Control, Tobacco Tactics, Public Health England, Dutch Institute for Public Health, etc.). 144.85.240.106 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC).
    • I will start another proposal for your suggestion. The expanded version says The term "heat-not-burn" refers to tobacco heated (at ~350 °C) by an electrically-powered element or carbon, not combusted (at ~800 °C).[2] The term "heat-not-burn" is still neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The article formerly clearly explained that the term "heat-not-burn" is a marketing term used by people selling these products, and its accuracy is disputed by reliable independent sources. QuackGuru removed this content. I think that "heated tobacco product" is a milder version of the spurious heated-not-burned-therefore-no-smoke claim, but "Charred tobacco product" would be more accurate. In common English usage, charred things which are blackened and brittle but not actually reduced to ash are generally considered to have been burned, and not heated. I quote myself from the original discussion:

No-one says: "What's that smell of vapour? Oh, I heated-not-burned the sauce! Great, and now the alarm's gone off — open the window and let the aerosol out, will you?"

The term was changed to "Electric smoking system", derived from the term used in a Cochrane review ("electronically-heated cigarette smoking system"), as discussed in the pre-move discussion. Pinging Doc James, who was involved in that discussion. HLHJ (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
See the expanded version for content on marketing. The article was reorganized without any policy violations. Only one source is used per claim. Adding multiple sources to come to a new conclusion is original research or a SYN violation. Every sentence in the expanded version is sourced without any hint of any policy violation. The current shorter version contains multiples problems.
No source explicitly states "Charred tobacco product". Therefore, it would not be more accurate. We don't use made up terms. See the Notes section for a list of synonyms that are sourced. "Charred tobacco product" and "Electric smoking system" are not listed because no source uses those terms.
No source explicitly states "Electric smoking system". It is a made up term. The article says Four studies of PREPs (cigarettes with reduced levels of tar, carbon and nicotine, and in one case delivered using an electronically‐heated cigarette smoking system) showed some reduction in exposure to some toxicants, but it is unclear whether this would substantially alter the risk of harm.[3] The article says "electronically-heated cigarette smoking system" not "electric smoking system". So far only one article says "electronically‐heated cigarette smoking system". It is an uncommon name and not the title of this article. We go by WP:COMMONNAME. QuackGuru (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Quoting WP:COMMONNAME:

Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. 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. Neutrality is also considered; see § Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. 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.

The article scope includes devices that use cigarettes and those that use looseleaf. "Electronically-heated cigarette smoking system" does not reflect the scope, and the original discussion covered why "electric" is more accurate than "electronic". Presenting these things as terribly high tech is part of the marketing. HLHJ (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for title change 2

Electric smoking system → Heated tobacco product –

  • Weak Oppose to change title to Heated tobacco product. It is another synonym but not as accurate and not as widely used as the term Heat-not-burn tobacco product. Heat-not-burn tobacco product is by far the most widely used common name. Other names may cause confusion.QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments on page move proposal

See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 1. See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 2. See Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Archive 3. After the RfC is closed the archives need to be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure waiting until after another move will actually make it easier to re-link the older archives. Redrose64, may I ask your advice and assistance? I made a bit of a mess of the page move, so it's probably my fault that they are de-linked. Advice on how to merge move requests might also be useful (see QG's comment below). HLHJ (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you have removed my comment on your second RfC (that it should be merged to the first RfC, and that my comments on it may be found there). You have also moved the second RfC so that comments by myself and others which were made about the first RfC appear to have been made about the second RfC. As a result, some of the comments do not make sense, and the first RfC contains only your own support vote. While I obviously support your desire to merge the RfCs, I think it would be better to restore the comments to their original positions and close one RfC or the other. HLHJ (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I tried to fix it. Can you fix it? I'm not sure how to fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't fix it, as I am an involved editor. I think it would be best to restore other people's comments to the way they were, then copy them over in a Template:Talk quote block, without removing the original comments, and signing it with a comment that makes it clear where you have copied it from. I'm assuming, subject to correction, that you want to close one of the move requests. You could add a comment to that request asking an admin (RedRose64 or Ivanvector, for instance) to close it for you, wp:pinging said admin so they will see. HLHJ (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a bit off-topic, but if you want to convert the RfCs below into ordinary discussions, it's a lot simpler. HLHJ (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the archives to their proper places, as follows:
I've left Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product/Proposed draft alone, since it was created after the moves of 30 October 2018. For future ref, when you move a page that has subpages, there is a checkbox "Move subpages (up to 100)" which should be set. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64. I should have known that moving archives would be that simple and done it myself. I'll know next time. HLHJ (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I follow all of the discussions on this, but if all of these alternative names are equivalent "common names" for these products, then either (1) the most succinct title, (2) the most technically accurate title, or (3) the term for these products that's used by the world's most notable health organization are the only reasonable alternatives to consider. I have not read the relevant literature, so I don't know if these are all equivalent terms; however, it'd probably be simplest and most reasonable to default to the WHO's "heated tobacco products" term for this article's title given that they don't feel it necessary to qualify the "not-burn" part in their use of the term:

As previously discussed, products that heat rather than burn are claimed to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes, although these claims of risk reduction are based on industry-funded studies. Independent studies should be conducted to investigate these claims. Convincing evidence has yet to be provided for the claims of risk reduction and health benefits of products that heat rather than burn tobacco. Some scientists consider these heated tobacco products to be just as harmful as conventional cigarettes
— [4]

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Seppi333: the term "heated tobacco product" is not known to the consumer and the products being sold to consumers by retailers are never or rarely called "heated tobacco product". The term "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" is the only common name consumers recognize.
The section for marketing can explain in detail about the heat-not-burn claims. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Marketing.
The draft also states "A 2016 World Health Organization reported noted that some scientists believe that heat-not-burn tobacco products to be as dangerous as traditional cigarettes.[16]" QuackGuru (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your claim that "The term 'Heat-not-burn tobacco product' is the only common name consumers recognize", do you have any evidence supporting that claim? My informal searching seems to indicate that the majority of consumers (whether correctly or not) call both products "E-Cigarettes". I just don't see most people making a distinction. To them, anything that has a battery and delivers nicotine when you suck on it is an "E-Cig". I really think you are confusing the term that people who sell them use and the term that people who research them use with what the average bloke or shiela calls them. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Read this article and this article to understand the difference between e-cigs and heat-not-burn tobacco products.
See "The term "heat-not-burn" refers to tobacco heated (at ~350 °C) by an electrically-powered element or carbon, not combusted (at ~800 °C).[13]" See Draft:Electric smoking system#Marketing. The term "heat-not-burn" means the temperature is a bit lower than regular cigarettes. Companies advertise these products as "heat-not-burn" products. It uniquely identifies these products. Consumers recognize the term "heat-not-burn" tobacco products. Other names have been used but they are vague or ambiguous. QuackGuru (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Could it be possible that you replied in haste without taking the time to understand what I wrote? Or (more likely) could it be that what I wrote was not clear? I wrote "I really think you are confusing the term that people who sell them use and the term that people who research them use with what the average bloke or shiela calls them" and you responded with two references to people who research them, followed by a mention of people who sell them. You once again asserted that "Consumers recognize the term 'heat-not-burn' tobacco products". I assert that consumers recognize the term "E-Cigarettes" for the tobacco product and the fluid product. Neither on of us have been able to find a reliable source to back up our assertion. My assertion is from some informal searching of Youtube, Reddit, and various blogs (Not RS). What is your assertion based upon? Have you even looked for ordinary people (not just scientists, manufacturers or anti-tobacco groups) calling electric devices that heat tobacco "E-cigs"? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
See "According to a recent internet survey of Japanese adolescents and adults, 48.0% of respondents were aware of HNB tobacco products and 19.8% of 15- to 19-year-olds had tried the IQOS."[5] That shows consumer recognize the term heat-not-burn tobacco products. E-cigarettes heat fluid. Heat-not-burn tobacco products heat a tobacco stick or loose tobacco. They are different products. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
From that paper: "These products are regulated differently in Japan, depending on whether the contents are liquid or tobacco leaf."
So of course consumer in japan don't use the same name for them. And how is what they are called in the Japanese language relevant to an English name on the English Wikipedia?
Also, why do you keep writing things like "They are different products"? Are you under the impression that common usage never calls two different things by the same name? See Koala bears, Polar bears, and Panda bears or Indians (native Americans) and Indians (people from India) or Buffalo (Southeast Asia) and Buffalo (American southwest). What people call something is often not even close to what it really is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, as far as "That shows consumer recognize the term heat-not-burn tobacco products," it shows no such thing, as I explained a few days ago. People in Japan are using words in Japanese and basically never use the English-language phrase "heat-not-burn". The term "kanestushiki tabako" is not equivalent to "heat-not-burn tobacco products" even in direct translation. (Thank you, by the way, for using edit summaries recently.) Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

See As of July 2017, approximately one in 20 US adults have heard of heat-not burn-tobacco products. That is content about the English-language and consumer awareness. A low percentage of people have heard of the term heat-not burn-tobacco products. Anyone can choose a name for this article. I think the top two are heat-not burn-tobacco products and heated tobacco products. These products are not well known as e-cigs. E-cigs don't use tobacco sticks or loose leaf tobacco. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Products to see an image of a heat-not burn-tobacco product. It uses a tobacco stick. E-cigs use liquid. QuackGuru (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2019

Electric smoking system → Heated tobacco product – The name Heated tobacco product is a known common name. Should the page be changed to Heated tobacco product? QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

*Yes. QuackGuru (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There are some other options being discussed below. I want to see if a consensus is formed before I !vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not a proper way to close an open move request. The editor proposing the move should not be closing the request, particularly when so much discussion has taken place. There are instructions for closing at WP:RMCI and instructions about waiting at WP:RM; someone uninvolved should have closed the discussion (which was an RM, not an RFC). Further, when you reopened a new request here, you made no reference to the fact that there had just been two weeks of discussion on the same topic, which you also archived so it isn't readily apparent. And then you !voted on your own request. I suggest that you read through WP:RM once more to see how these discussions are usually conducted. Dekimasuよ! 05:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The earlier discussion was unarchived without comment by QuackGuru after I lodged this objection. Dekimasuよ! 19:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a standard process for RFCs as well, but I see that some were closed yesterday after about 10 days when multiple comments had been added to it the same day. Why can't discussion be allowed to proceed naturally here? If you don't want things to be conducted as RFCs or RMs, you can have normal discussion that works toward consensus on the issues without (or before) adding those tags. Dekimasuよ! 05:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Advantages of an informal discussion on the talk page:
The discussion is among those who are interested in the topic and are watching the page. This can be good or bad. In the case of, say, Cockcroft–Walton generator or Tunnel diode, the informal discussion attracts mostly electronics engineers and physicists. The opinions of non-experts aren't very helpful. In the case of Acupuncture, the editors who are interested in the topic and are watching the page include a bunch of acupuncturists who have a COI and want to make the article stop saying that acupuncture doesn't work.
Advantages of the more formal Wikipedia:Requested moves:
The discussion attracts a wider variety of editors who tend to be less involved in the topic and more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This can be good or bad. It is usually good, but in those cases where the outcome is obvious it wastes the time of some of our most expert editors when the question could have been easily settled less formally.
So, which is best for this page? That depends. Are the editors watching this page in basic agreement on what the page should say? Do they work well together to resolve content disputes? Are some of the page watchers biased for or against the products described? Any whitewashing or blackwashing attempts in the history? I will leave it to the reader to look at the talk page archives for answers to these questions.
Finally, it is easy to start informal and then decide to go formal. It is harder to go the other way. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem occurring here is the aggressive clerking and archiving of discussions while those discussions are still proceeding. A few days ago there were a dozen or so requests for comment on this page, all started by QuackGuru, and all over very minor content issues. Then, suddenly, QuackGuru themselves decided that many of them should be closed "to focus on other RfCs" (e.g. [9]) including the move requests reproduced above, without anything being resolved, and then archived pretty much everything ([10]). Then they opened a move request asking exactly the same question as the one they had shut down less than a day earlier, and later "un-archived" some of the old discussions inside a hat. All the while QuackGuru is building a huge parallel article at Draft:Electric smoking system in which they seem to be implementing their suggestions here well in advance of receiving any input. I'm not the first to note this all makes it extremely difficult and tedious to participate in or even follow the discussions. Now I see that QuackGuru has also been copying and pasting into this article from the draft (e.g. [11]) after I had specifically asked them not to do specifically that. As predicted, I am miffed. @QuackGuru: I suggest you should not start any new discussions until the ones already ongoing are resolved, so that some other editors have a chance to get a word in, but I can really only ask you to consider this. I will block you if you copy your draft over the article again, or if you close or manually archive any current discussions on this page. As I said before, if/when the draft is resolved and needs to replace the article, ping me and I will history-merge the two pages. You are making an enormous mess of things with your repeated cut-and-paste moves. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: This may have been my fault. Elsewhere on this talk page, I asked QuackGuru to introduce the changes into the article and self-revert so that I could see a diff showing the difference between the current revision and the proposed changes in this article (re: can you implement the changes between your version and the current version in this article, undo the edit, and link to the diff of your changes?). Due to the large number of differences between the current/proposed revisions, I felt that I needed a diff to compare the two. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So on January 23, in the earlier move request, QuackGuru wrote: "the term 'heated tobacco product' is not known to the consumer and the products being sold to consumers by retailers are never or rarely called 'heated tobacco product.'" (On January 9 QuackGuru had opposed a move to Heated tobacco product.) Then on January 25 QuackGuru wrote, "The name Heated tobacco product is a known common name" and wrote that the change should be supported. Why the sudden shift? Move requests and RFCs are different processes. Requested moves don't require devil's advocates. Please explain your position showing how it coincides with article titling policy: WP:AT, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIAL, WP:NDESC, etc. To simply state without evidence that the term in question is not a common name, and then to state it is a common name, is not helpful for the purposes of a move discussion, nor does a simple "yes" carry significant weight in an RM close, even setting aside the directions in WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's necessary to rely upon the Wikipedia definition of what a common name is, as shown at WP:COMMONNAME. If "heated tobacco product" is not known to the consumer, then it is probably not the best title for Wikipedia. From a basic search, other phrasings appear more frequently in titles on Pubmed, including Electrically heated cigarette smoking system. But what title would a reader be likely to search for this page under? Note that if it can be established that there is no common name, WP:NDESC can be used to support a neutrally-worded title (based on, for instance, the idea that not being burned is misleading); but that's not what's currently argued in the proposal, which does not explain why Heated tobacco product would be preferable to Electric smoking system. Dekimasuよ! 20:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with the term Electrically heated cigarette smoking system until reading a source last year. The name is too long and not known to the consumer.
  • Heated tobacco product is preferable over Electric smoking system because no source explicitly states Electric smoking system. A neutral title is preferable rather than what a reader would likely search for. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A neutral title is preferable to what a reader would search for if there is no common name, per WP:NPOVTITLE. If there is a WP:COMMONNAME, defined as "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)"–note, this does not mean only technical/scientific sources–we prefer the common name. My appeal is that you base your arguments for changing the article title on the article titling policy. You may think that certain types of titles are preferable, but community consensus has determined a range of standard ways to determine what title should be used, and it is incumbent upon you to show how the proposed title is in accordance with WP:AT and any other applicable naming conventions. Dekimasuよ! 21:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Heat-not-burn tobacco product might be the only widely recognized common name to the consumer but based on what others stated they disagree with the title Heat-not-burn tobacco product. I don't have a major issue with Heat-not-burn tobacco product but others don't seem to support it. I selected Heated tobacco product as another option. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy Macon, should we follow WP:NPOVTITLE and use the most recognized WP:COMMONNAME? Heat-not-burn tobacco product is most likely the only widely used common name. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The most recognized WP:COMMONNAME appears to be is "E-cigarette". The mass of people who together decide what name is most commonly used don't seem to care whether their e-cig uses tobacco or a liquid. People who sell them, people who write laws about them, and people who study the health effects of them care very much about the differences. So if we are to uuise the common name, it should be "electronic cigarettes". We can create two sections in the one article, or we can make two articles with different qualifiers in parenthesis. Perhaps Electronic cigarette (vapor) and Electronic cigarette (heated tobacco)? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
A "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" usually uses a tobacco stick or sometimes loose leaf tobacco. An "E-cigarette" uses a liquid. There are "Heat-not-burn tobacco products" that use a tobacco stick and have a chamber for liquid. A "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" is different than an "E-cigarette". Calling it an Electronic cigarette (heated tobacco) is misleading. The most recognized WP:COMMONNAME is "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" by far. I may have to change my vote back to my original vote after reading the comments by Dekimasu.
See "They are not electronic cigarettes.[5] They can overlap with e-cigarettes such as a combination of an e-cigarette and a heat-not-burn tobacco product, for the use of tobacco or e-liquid.[16]" See Draft:Electric smoking system. The current article explains very little about the topic. The proposed draft does explain what the product is and the differences. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Please consider presenting evidence of relative prevalence of these titles rather than stating that one is more common than another. For example, a simple Google search gives 19.1K hits for "heat-not-burn tobacco product". "Heated tobacco product" gives 24.0K hits. "Electric smoking system" gives 3800. "Electronic smoking system" gives 36.1K. "Electrically heated cigarette smoking system" gives 17.2K. "Electrically heated smoking system" gives 31.2K. Together these seem to suggest that there is no single common name for this, but certainly that "heat-not-burn tobacco product" is not the WP:COMMONNAME by Wikipedia definition. The evidence should be presented and evaluated in a more systematic manner. Furthermore naming based upon the system seems to focus on the device, and naming based upon the product seems to focus on what goes into the device, so there is an issue of scope as well. It may turn out that a WP:NDESC title is best, but please try to show this through data rather than assertion. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The google search I did says About 7,840,000 results (0.48 seconds) for heated tobacco product.
The google search I did says About 13,300,000 results (0.48 seconds) for heat-not-burn tobacco product.
I did not put them in quotation marks when I did a search.
See Draft:Electric smoking system#Products for an updated list of the products. I do not know if it matters what companies say what type of products they sell in order to decide what the title should be. QuackGuru (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Searches do need to be placed in quotation marks in order to retrieve meaningful results. (Even using quotation marks, the quality of the results being received requires further evaluation.) Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The google search I did says About 259,000 results (0.33 seconds) for "Heat-not-burn" in quotation marks.
It also depends on the country where these products are being marketed. See "Heat-not-burn searches originating in Japan have experienced tremendous growth.[137] Since the introduction of Philip Morris International's IQOS brand in select Japanese cities in November 2014, searches for heat-not-burn products have increased substantially.[137]" Also see "In practical terms, there are now between 5.9 and 7.5 million heat-not-burn related Google searches in Japan each month based on the latest search estimates for September 2017.[137]" See Draft:Electric smoking system#Prevalence. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, let's be clear. Titles on the English Wikipedia are based specifically upon English-language usage, not usage in foreign languages. And I see the article that you are referring to, but luckily, I do speak Japanese, and it is important to point out that there are not large numbers of Japanese people searching for the phrase "heat-not-burn" in English. The researchers are relying upon the number of searches for a variety of brand names in Japanese and for the phrases 加熱式たばこ and 加熱式タバコ, both of which mean heated tobacco. Now, I understand that you may want to translate that as "heat-not-burn" since there is a contrast being drawn with "regular, burned tobacco." However, that is not what the Japanese phrase says, and as noted above, we do not really care how prevalent searches for kanetsushiki tabako are in a foreign language. They are talking about searches as a proxy for an increase in the market for the product, not what the WP:COMMONNAME may be. Dekimasuよ! 05:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The article titled "They’re heating up: Internet search query trends reveal significant public interest in heat-not-burn tobacco products" I mentioned uses the term heat-not-burn tobacco product numerous times.[12] The term heated tobacco product is not used in English even once. The term heat-not-burn tobacco product is more descriptive than the ambiguous term heated tobacco product. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Internal usage in one article is clearly not evidence of prevalence in a preponderance of independent, reliable English-language sources. Where the article in question does discuss prevalence, it is to distinguish between types of things using terminology selected by the researchers, not to establish the common name of those things. The searches that served as data for the researchers were not instances of "heat-not-burn tobacco products." Dekimasuよ! 09:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Google results give you an (imperfect) idea of how a term is used. To get a better answer to the question "what term do ordinary people use", unless you luck out and find a linguist who discusses exactly that, you need to exclude reliable sources and look at what remains. You want to see what ordinary people call it, not what scientists, lawyers, or advertising agencies call it.
Consider that metal thing that most of us drive around. Looking at reliable sources, you find things like "please step out of the vehicle", "Luxury automobile", "vehicular manslaughter", "automakers", etc. But you would be mistaken if you were to conclude that most people call them automobiles or that that most people call them vehicles. Most ordinary people (and comparatively few reliable sources) call them cars and trucks. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think we may be talking at cross purposes. Google results are an imperfect indicator, yes. But under WP:COMMONNAME the question is not precisely "what term ordinary people use." At any rate I was trying to explain that the article in question cited by QuackGuru is not an indication of either something along the lines of "vehicle" or something along the lines of "car," but rather a variety of phrases in Japanese. Dekimasuよ! 17:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." See WP:PRECISION. "In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title." WP:NDESC. The term heat-not-burn tobacco product is not ambiguous as the vague term heated tobacco product. "Ambiguous[6] 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." See WP:COMMONNAME. QuackGuru (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

An image in the draft states "Temporary smoking room and a sales promotion of glo at the 2016 Sendai Pageant of Starlight in Kōtōdai-kōen Park." See Draft:Electric smoking_system#Marketing. User:Dekimasu, is the wording correct for the image? QuackGuru (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. There is a claim that this picture was taken in Japan, and it's true that there is no Japanese wording for me to translate for you in this case (or at least I can't see what's written next to that guy's head). "Smoking" (スモーキング, as a synonym for the Japanese word 喫煙) would be understandable to many or most Japanese speakers, particularly when associated with the international symbol. Kōen means park, so this says pretty much says Kōtōdai Park Park, but that kind of error is fairly common when dealing with geography in Japan. If there's something else you'd like me to do related to a language issue, let me know. Dekimasuよ! 17:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
For WP:NDESC, "heat-not-burn" would probably not be advisable, would it? Charring is a form of combustion, which means the proposed title is less than accurate. Anyway, at this point it is worth noting that the move request filed above that you subsequently closed was about moving the page to Heat-not-burn tobacco product, so I remain unclear as to why the previous discussion was closed; it should really not be hatted either, since it is completely relevant to this ongoing discussion. Dekimasuよ! 09:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
In the future, can you please use edit summaries when adding to this talk page? You have made so many edits to it that it is next to impossible to find any given edit in the page history. This was also an issue when I was trying to figure out where the old move request went. Dekimasuよ! 09:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
See also my prior comments in the two previous move discussions.
The suggestion of "Electronic cigarette (vapor) and Electronic cigarette (heated tobacco)" is an interesting one. "Electric cigarette (liquid)" and "electric cigarette (solid)" seems as though it might not be unreasonable if the article's scope didn't include non-electric non-cigarettes. However, large tobacco companies have put out marketing materials aggressively seeking to define these products as e-cigarettes for vapers. I am a bit suspicious that this association is spurious. It might be expected to boost support of these products by associating them with a more popular product. It also seems to be used to imply health claims. It has definitely been used to argue that that they should not be regulated as cigarettes.
In the initial discussion, I explained why I prefer "electric" to "electronic" on accuracy grounds (the heating element on modern products is electric, as in e-cigs). The earliest products covered by this article are also from the 1980s and seem to have been pretty analog; actually, they didn't use an electric heating element, they used a lump of burning charcoal. So maybe we have to drop "electric", too. "Low-temperature recreational smoking products" would be a good generic description. Given the strong promotional messaging advertising these products as high-tech, marketing them in Apple-computer-like packaging, naming them for connotations of "Intelligence quotient / operating system", and so on, the word "electronic" seems promotional (actually, the word "system" gets used somewhat promotionally, too). While the mere fact that a term is plugged by tobacco companies does not make it unusable, I think it is cause to scrutinize its neutrality and accuracy.
Both "vapour" and "heated tobacco" are criticized in reliable sources as misleading. Putting a lot of humectant chemicals in your cigarettes will make them contain a lot of water and emit large clouds of wet steam as they char (which absorbs a lot of energy, so you need an outside heat source, or they will go out). This steam conceals the smoke, but doesn't magically turn it into vapour by association. The idea that these products heat the tobacco rather than burning it is also disputed in RS, and the common use of the English language (see the pizza discussion above). If we want to be precise, these products char. So "Charring cigarettes" would be accurate for the proprietary-cigarette-refill products, and "charring pipes" for the loose-leaf-refill products. I'd be OK with splitting the article along these lines, with a suitable clarification and link in the lede. HLHJ (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Both "Charring cigarettes" and "charring pipes" are unsourced named. See Draft:Electric smoking system#Notes for a for a list of verifiable synonyms. The names you slected are not listed in the notes section. You stated in another thread, "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[13] QuackGuru (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Once again, either a proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME, in which case we should use it, or there isn't, in which case we can use WP:NDESC titling regardless of whether a proposed name is otherwise sourced. Dekimasuよ! 21:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to use unsourced names when there are several sourced names. I never heard of the names "Charring cigarettes" or "charring pipes". They don't describe the article scope. I think it is far better to select from one of the more known names that do describe the article scope. QuackGuru (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly impressed by your list of thirteen sourced names, QuackGuru! You put a lot of effort into that. All of them seem to use "heat-not-burn" (or an abbreviation), "heated", "heating", "smokeless", or "vapour". Does anyone have any suggestions for names that do not incorrectly imply that the user does not inhale pyrolysis products? HLHJ (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
HLHJ, retaining the word "smoking" in the new title would seem to be the easiest solution to that issue. It might be possible to reemphasize the tobacco aspect while maintaining clarity that the scope is the way things are smoked, not the tobacco that's put in the "smoking system" (which I think is the flaw with anything ending in "tobacco product"). For WP:NDESC, I'd thus suggest something like Heated tobacco smoking system. But terms used in the wild like Electrically heated cigarette smoking system and Electrically heated smoking system, both mentioned above, also succeed as far as your suggestion is concerned. And as was pointed out somewhere above, it seems to be possible to use these to smoke substances other than tobacco. Dekimasuよ! 22:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
These products "heat" tobacco. Putting the word "smoke" in the title is definitely not neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
In the "Nature and function" section, the article currently states that what comes out is smoke. Smoke also notes that smoke is a product of pyrolysis, not only of burning something. The action that users of this product are engaged in is often referred to as "smoking." Dekimasuよ! 23:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Comments_on_older_versions_or_expanded_version and the archives. That section is littered with MEDRS violations and failed verification content. See "another problem: Based entirely on primary MEDRS sources, and non-MEDRS sources."[14] It comes out as a violation of consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean by "violation of consensus"; consensus can change, and presumably the current article is a product of some past consensus, since the information hasn't been removed. I got here a week ago, and only because of improper closures and rapid archiving on this page. I am unconnected to this industry and I have never used one of these products, so all I know of the subject is what's come out over the course of the current open move request, and what's in the article. If the section on the page that repeatedly refers to "smoke" is incorrect, and the article Smoke is incorrect, then those things should probably be handled before proceeding to a move discussion on the same topic. Whether a picture of charred pizza is appropriate is a separate question from whether what's coming out of these things can be considered smoke.... Dekimasuよ! 00:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Also see Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Image of charred pizza and the archives regarding the MEDRS violations. The "Nature and function" contains several MEDRS violations and was not the product of consensus. Almost all the content in that section was written by one editor. After I tried to fix it I started a RfC when the editor disagreed with removing the problematic content. QuackGuru (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, we did discuss and heavily modify that section. As I recall five or so editors were involved. On MEDRS tags you have just added, St. Helen et al. reviewed parts of a multimillion-page application of PMI to the FDA, containing a fairly colossal number of studies; while technically they did not review multiple sources, and are not listed on PubMed as a review, they are certainly not a primary source. St. Helen and the WHO source are cited on the temperatures to which these devices heat. I also cited a primary source, but only for the statement that what the first source calls "pyrolysis" can also be called "charring", in context; I think I added it in response to discussion on the talk page. The included quote starts "Charring due to pyrolysis (a form of organic matter thermochemical decomposition)..." I don't think there is a serious MEDRS violation here. I ask that these tags be removed. The last reference your tagged is primary, and only supports a clause which does not add much to the article; I removed clause and citation (and the medrs tag, obviously). Dekimasu, I will respond to your constructive comment above at the bottom of this discussion and ping you. HLHJ (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Please ask the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for feedback. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system#Comments_on_older_versions_or_expanded_version for current discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I have no objection to your asking yourself, QuackGuru. HLHJ (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Goals (needs a break for editing convenience anyway)

  • I'm going to have an initial attempt at defining goals; please mention any errors or problems with my summary.
We do not have a common name used "in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources". Per WP:NPOVTITLE, I am therefore suggesting "a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors" (WP:NDESC). That title should follow WP:AT. In this case, I think that means it should be:
  1. accurate. It should not imply that the user does not inhale pyrolysis products, because that is a misleading marketing claim.
  2. concise (may be at odds with the previous criterion).
  3. clear and natural. It should not cause Guy Macon, or anyone else, to think of food-processing equipment. It should not needlessly use jargon or unusual senses of words.
  4. parallel to other articles on similar products; see Category:Nicotine products with harm-reduction claims, and Nicotine marketing#"Modified risk" products. For disclosure, I created the category and both QG and I worked on that section, but I don't think the content has been significantly changed since this came up.
I have not yet made up my mind about what the best title would be, but these are the criteria I am looking for. Obviously there are likely to be trade-offs. Suggestions for names, and criticisms of my criteria, are very welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dekimasu: "Electrically-heated cigarette smoking system" and "Electrically-heated smoking system" are both decent suggestions. My only objection is that I find "heated" a bit vague. Of course something that is charred or burned has technically been heated. But in normal speech, I say "heated" until it starts charring, and then "charred" or "burned" until it falls to ash, at which point I would say that it had burned. The "char-is-black, ash-is-white" generalization makes casual distinction easy.
Getting into technical terms, obviously an object has been burned if the carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen; the object crumbles to ash, CO2, steam, and smoke. But if an object only gets hot enough to char, the pyrolysis is less complete. A lot of the non-carbon compounds break down and are driven off, but the carbon does not break down. The object becomes carbonized, black, dry, and brittle. Charring is also commonly called "burning". For instance, the making of charcoal by charring wood is referred to as charcoal burning, and carbonized food is called burnt food, not heated food.
So "burnt" seems less inaccurate than "heated". But "charred" is more precise than "burned"; it has a clearer, narrower meaning. That meaning ties tightly to the function of these products, which char but seem not to reduce themselves to ash like regular cigarettes. "Carbonized" has the same advantages, but seems more jargony. The word "char" may be less common now that English speakers use solid-fuel fires less, but I think it's more common than "carbonized", and it's certainly shorter.
I agree with you on "smoking"; my one concern is that it's hard to fit a verb describing the user into a natural, concise noun phrase describing the product, but that's a weak objection. QG obviously strongly objects. I also agree with you on "cigarette", but I think that if we use this term, the loose-leaf products should be split off into another article. I think this makes sense anyway; the cigarette products require users to buy refills from the manufacturer, while pipes can use generic tobacco or cannabis products, so the economic and cultural aspects are naturally rather different, and different groups seem to use them. As cigarettes are highly-engineered products, I should not be surprised if the effects were also different. HLHJ (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Different names are used in different fields and, on this topic, it would certainly be better not to take the name designed by tobacco industry marketing. Wikipedia should use the more neutral scientific terminology used by public health authorities and international law, that is to say Heated tobacco product (examples from above: WHO, FCTC, Tobacco Control, Tobacco Tactics, Public Health England, Dutch Institute for Public Health, etc.).
145.232.230.253 (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for your reply. I will think more about this, but my initial reaction is that "charred" is probably not advisable due to the general recognizability criterion, even if we agree that there is no common name in this case. Readers probably do not recognize the use of these products as a process of charring. Even with some science background, until now I have never really thought seriously about the physics of embers or the difference between smouldering and charring, for example. Charring is an effect of the heating (even if charring is what releases the nicotine), so I think heating may be all right; it seems to adequately describe the difference between the two products. We need to aim for a balance between precision and avoiding WP:RGW. As I said, I'll think about this more. Dekimasuよ! 18:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I need to think more about this too. I agree that recognizability and ease of comprehension is important. Reading your comment, I realized I also need to watch my linguistic POV; recognizibility of "charring" may vary between English dialects.
I think that the use of "heated tobacco product" and "aerosol" is probably often an attempt to avoid legal challenges while not being technically inaccurate, a common tightrope for heavily-lobbied organizations. Saying "cigarette" or "smoke" is, going on past record, likely to bring down the ire of the manufacturer.
On comprehension, I'm thinking of the term "global warming". While technically accurate, referring to a rise in the global mean temperature, it causes people to claim that there's no global warming because it's cold out. Explanations about the effects on the meridional temperature gradient and the dynamics of Rossby waves in the polar front don't help. "Climate change" gives the layperson a much more accurate impression. Similarly, I think "heated" could cause uninformed people to say "see, it isn't burned, because it's heated, and there's no smoke without fire, so it's not smoke, just vapour, which is safe". This is the sort of associational logic which marketing exploits. The "parallel" guideline might help here, as a parallel name would create an association with similar products... I'm not sure I have the needed expertise here. I'll come back to this. HLHJ (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A further thought. All my media training has been in science communications, not marketing. I am used to dealing with terminology which, like "global warming", was chosen because it was clear to a specialist, without considering whether it is misleading to a layperson. I am not used to dealing with an entire subject area where all the terms are chosen by people with a strong commercial interest in creating certain impressions, people who have a conflict of interest with accuracy. Is the question we should be asking ourselves "If there were no pre-existing names, and I were studying these products, what would I call them?" Does this view fit with the guidelines? HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not bad in terms of WP:NDESC. Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to make a table of different words discussed, with pros and cons. I realize that there will not be a unanimous consensus, but I will edit this in response to comments and try to make it NPOV.
word pros cons
heat-not-burn fairly common, natural marketing term, inaccurate
heated, heating, etc. fairly common, non-jargon, lawsuit-proof natural sense is a version of claim above, vague
smoke-free common, natural marketing term, inaccurate
smoke, smoking accurate, non-jargon hard to fit into a natural, concise noun phrase describing the product
charring, char accurate, moderately non-jargon not a common word in some English varieties, not commonly used for these products
carbonized accurate a bit jargony, not commonly used for these products
tobacco clear, avoids confusion, lawsuit-proof excludes cannabis etc. scope
cigarette clear, avoids confusion not common (avoided in marketing), does not include loose-leaf fill scope.
mini-cigarette natural, clear not common (avoided in marketing), does not include loose-leaf fill scope
vapour fairly common (favoured term in marketing) marketing term, inaccurate
aerosol fairly common (fallback term in marketing), lawsuit-proof vague (applies equally to wet steam and smoke); jargony
"Mini-cigarette", not previously mentioned, is included due to use in a review I recently added. I've found some new MEDRS, and will need some time to read through and consider them. Comments and criticism welcome. HLHJ (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2019 (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.

No consensus for page move

See diffs here and here for when it was moved. There was no clear consensus for the page move. Therefore, we can move the back to the previous consensus.

I stated That does not make sense when the term is confusing and not known to the general reader. The term electrically-heated smoking system could be ambiguous or inaccurate to the reader. HLHJ stated "Agreed that the title is poor, but "heated tobacco" is worse."[18] This is an "electric smoking system".

Revision as of 22:10, 12 May 2017: See "Doc James moved page Heat-not-burn smoking device to Heat-not-burn tobacco product: per source and comments at WPMED"[19] There was a discussion for the page move back in early May 2017 at WikiProject Medicine.

  • Support the term Heat-not-burn tobacco product. The term "Heat-not-burn tobacco product" uniquely describes the products being sold. Terms such as heated tobacco product are ambiguous or inaccurate. "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." See WP:PRECISION. "Ambiguous[6] 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." See WP:COMMONNAME.

I propose we move the page back to Heat-not-burn tobacco product in accordance with consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I do not believe the 2017 discussion really represents consensus either, unless it is just a silent consensus. If you wanted to revert the change from October, you could have used WP:RMTR (requests to revert undiscussed moves) before filing the initial move request here. It is verging on the tendentious to request a move from A to B, and when no consensus is found for B, to request a move to B on the basis of there being no consensus for A. The move from October was also in place for months and could also be considered to enjoy silent consensus. I am finding the tenor of the discussion on this page exhausting. Dekimasuよ! 17:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As the closer I'm going to concur with Dekimasu's comment on this one. Three months is borderline in terms of whether it establishes "stable title" status for a no-consensus close, but also since most of the participants above (other than QuackGuru) expressed reservations about the previous name "heat-not-burn tobacco product", I think it best to stick with the most recent stable title of "electronic smoking system" in this instance. Like I said though, it definitely is no consensus so if there is a proposal for a better alternative that you think will gather consensus, then please discuss and bring a new RM to that effect. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Propositions made in the section 'Proposal for title change' (9 January 2019 to 9 February 2019)
Title Supported by (+ 1) Opposed by (− 1) Score
Heat-not-burn tobacco product QuackGuru, Doc James User with IP address, HLHJ 0
Heated tobacco product User with IP address, Seppi333, Guy Macon, QuackGuru (temporarily) QuackGuru ('weak', temporarily) + 3-4
Electric smoking system HLHJ, Amakuru QuackGuru, User with IP address 0
Electronic cigarettes (heated tobacco) Guy Macon QuackGuru, User with IP address − 1
Electric cigarette (solid) HLHJ User with IP address 0
Charring cigarettes HLHJ QuackGuru, User with IP address − 1
Heated tobacco smoking system Dekimasu User with IP address 0
Electrically-heated cigarette smoking system Dekimasu User with IP address 0
Electrically-heated smoking system Dekimasu User with IP address 0

The discussion above, with all its repeats and digressions, is so long that my attempt to summarise it in a table certainly contains mistakes. The current type is bad, as it is not so used by authorities and can be confused with electronic cigarettes (which do not contain tobacco).

As mentioned above, I see no other option than to take the name used in public health, scientific research and international law. It may not be perfect, but it is the least opposed and the article introduction will define it well enough to exclude gross misunderstanding.

144.85.150.100 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

You can request a page move. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, what do you think of the above table? Responding to comments from Dekimasu and Guy Macon, I've put together a page on the thermal breakdown of organic matter. It consists largely of illustrated examples. Comments are very welcome, it is personal notes as much as anything, and there may be errors. HLHJ (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
On a closely-related topic, can we agree on calling the term "heat-not-burn" "controversial" (like this)? I'd like to find a way to not say it in Wikipedia's voice in the lede, though the term should be described. HLHJ (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
If WHO is using "Heated tobacco products" I am happy to see us use "Heated tobacco products" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, Dekimasu, Guy Macon, HLHJ, Amakuru and Seppi333, can you also live with "Heated tobacco products" as page title?
83.228.135.214 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC).
PS: I support saying that the name "heat-not-burn" is controversial.
83.228.135.214 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC).
Replying to the ping, I think that Heated tobacco product is preferable to Heat-not-burn tobacco product. Dekimasuよ! 22:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Did you means to write product instead of products? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't know why we would violate WP:SINGULAR in this case. Is there a reason to? Dekimasuよ! 06:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with Heated tobacco products. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Since I've been pinged in, I'll say that I can support any outcome if it has sufficient consensus. I reverted the title to its current name following the previous RM, but I don't "support" that in particular. It's just that at the time there was no other proposed name that had gathered any sort of consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Most consumers do not know what a "heated tobacco product" means.
  • You can see from the page views consumers are researching for the page on Heat-not-burn tobacco product with daily page views of 47. The daily page views for Heated tobacco product is just 1 because most consumers are unfamiliar with the term Heated tobacco product. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
These are almost certainly page views based on clicking on internal links to Heat-not-burn tobacco product, not from inserting it in the search box. Dekimasuよ! 06:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
See https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2018-01-31&end=2019-02-20&pages=Heated_tobacco_product The search for Heated tobacco product got a daily page view is 0 over the last year. That confirms it is not a common name and readers rarely heard of the name. We should not use an ambiguous name for a title of the article, according to WP:PRECISION and WP:COMMONNAME. QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
See closed discussion above on name popularity.
Thank you for the ping, 83.228.135.214. I don't really like the current name either, and would be glad to resolve this. I've slightly changed my views since the previous discussion. "Heated tobacco product" (HTP) seems to encompass all products in which solid tobacco is heated with an external heat source (that is, a heat source which is not the oxidative combustion of the tobacco). According to the Dauzenberg review, this encompasses products with peak solid tobacco temperatures of 35 to 500 Celsius, which is broader than I thought. The well-above-boiling ones create aerosol thermally; they pyrolyze the tobacco, and the pyrolysis products leave as smoke. I think the ~body-temperature ones leach the nicotine, as in snus, and then mechanically aerosolize it? These seem quite different, and some of my earlier name suggestions only make sense for pyrolyzing products. This article does not currently discuss non-pyrolyszing products, and some sources do not seem to include them as HTP; Dauzenberg calls them quasi-non-heated-tobacco and "hybrid", I think because they send a vapourized fluid (presumable heated to the boiling point) through the tobacco. I've just looked that up; I suspect I don't understand all this yet.
I've started an RfC at the bottom of this page on terminology in the article, including, since it is irrelevant to them, a suggestion that non-pyrolysing HTP be considered out of scope/split out into a separate article. I'm worried that otherwise the article will spend a lot of time discussing a much rarer and quite different product as an exception to nearly every statement; two articles with titles that are differentiated versions of "heated tobacco product" would resolve that, though I'm open to other suggestions. If we decide that the scope of the article should include sub-boiling heated tobacco products, and I'm not misunderstanding something here, then I'd support the name "heated tobacco product", with clear differentiation within the article.
On reflection, I quite like Dekimasu's suggestion of picking terms to overcome the overlap with the same products being with tobacco and non-tobacco, as I see no sensible way to separate them. There exists the generic term "Dry herb vaporizer", which, however, I am not advocating. HLHJ (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Divisions of heated tobacco products
pyrolizing/charring sub-boiling
proprietary packaged refills loose-leaf fill
tobacco only tobacco and non-tobacco (cannabis etc.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heated_tobacco_product/Archive_6&oldid=944455640"