Talk:Wheels (disambiguation)

Requested move 4 December 2015

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. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Wheels → Wheels (disambiguation) – Seriously? This is as clear a WP:PLURALPT case as I have ever seen. Plural primary topics are particularly strong where the term in question comes in pairs or multiples, and other than a unicycle, every wheeled vehicle has at least two wheels. Move this page to the (disambiguation) title to redirect the title to Wheel. bd2412 T 03:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: so many uses of the plural, and anyone looking for the round thing seems more likely to search in the singular. First line of dab page immediately helps those who actually did type plural wanting singular. PamD 10:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Why do you say "anyone looking for the round thing seems more likely to search in the singular"? Do you have any evidence of this? Also, aren't most of the terms on the disambiguation page references to "the round thing", in the same way that Lions and Tigers and Bears are references to the animal? bd2412 T 13:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • User:PamD, sorry but as User:BD2412, plus why would someone search "Wheels" and mean a singular item (media product) off the dab list. Check "Wheels is", even hits for "..wheels is" refer to wheels. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support wheels are almost always plural. And certainly "Wheels" almost always refers to "Wheels". In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Wheels are generally found with at least two much more often than just one. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose largely per PamD. Wheels are actually discussed much more often in the singular than in the plural in reliable sources - see this ngram for "wheel is" versus "wheels are". The length of the Wheels dab page is an excellent argument for keeping it as a separate dab page, as per WP:PLURALPT: "Just as with any other title, a plural base title can direct to an article (Snickers), or to a dab page (Suns)." Dohn joe (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Compare this more concretely grounded ngram for "has a wheel" versus "has wheels". bd2412 T 14:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    What do you mean, "nonsense"? How is my ngram not "concretely grounded"? It gives the simplest way to distinguish between plural and singular uses in running text. Compare this to other ngrams where words are more frequently used in the plural, as with skates and pants. Dohn joe (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

    • The argument is not whether wheels are more frequently referred to in the singular or the plural, but whether the word "wheels" most often refers to what PamD calls "the round things". A more representative search would be "wheels is" versus "wheels are", since all the meanings other than as a plural are for singular items named "Wheels", so one would say "Wheels is an album" or "Wheels is a town" rather than "wheels are" in those cases. bd2412 T 16:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, some of the entries (the sports teams, for example), would still be written as "Wheels are", but in any event, PamD is correct on the main principle, for titling purposes, at least. From WP:PLURALPT: "Because readers and editors are used to seeing titles at the singular form, and can be expected to search for them/link to them in the singular form, the intentional use of a plural form by a reader or editor can be evidence that a separate primary topic exists at the plural form." Dohn joe (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Even for "wheels is", note that a Google Books search for "wheels is" brings up virtually nothing but references to actual wheels, such as these examples from countless different books: "a gurney with wheels is used", "[p]roduction of aluminum stamped wheels is small", "the exit point between the wheels is where the most deflection will occur", "[t]he process of production of wheels is time consuming", "disadvantage of monocoque wheels is a lack of large holes in the center for brake cooling", "the driving torque applied to the road wheels is translated into a tractive force", "an addition to the number of sets of wheels is evidently attended with disadvantages", "[c]hoosing 12in wheels is fine as long as you factor them into the calculations", "function of the front wheels is to lead the engine", "only one of the four loading wheels is on the ground at a time", "the course of carriage wheels is distinctly marked", "[p]ulling a canoe around on wheels is an open invitation to strangers", "the outcome of the permutation of the front and the rear wheels is the exchange symmetry", "[d]riving the front wheels is a natural idea", "a 10% difference in speed between left and right wheels is readily accommodated by our lawns", "the braking force at the main wheels is 0.8 times the main wheel reaction", "the ability to balance and move on two wheels is very impressive", "an electric motor used to turn the wheels is converted to a generator", "[a]ccess to the drive wheels is another consideration when recommending pediatric chairs", "each of the front wheels is hinged separately", and so on. bd2412 T 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point here. Of course as a word qua word, "wheels" is used most often as the plural of "wheel". But that's not the point. The question is editor and reader behavior. PLURALPT tells us that editors and readers can be expected to link to/search for a term using the singular, and that it is reasonable to think that therefore, using the plural is a conscious decision to search for an encyclopedic topic that uses the plural. Because of that, it is sometimes more helpful to our readers and editors to set up a separate article or dab page at a plural. Here, we have lots of articles at the plural form. Thus, it's more user-friendly to have a separate plural dab page. Dohn joe (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - by far the most common use of "wheels" is the wheels of cars or bikes, i.e. Wheel. -Zanhe (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support unless someone can actually demonstrate how even the sum of individual articles about things called 'wheels' has the long-term significance comparable to the generic concept. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Unlike windows, the plural form is not the name of a highly-prominent topic distinct from the singular form: this page lists a lot of notable but still minor topics with the name, and per BD2412, "wheels" will generally be searched for by people who should end up at wheel. Nyttend (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I can't believe that this hasn't already redirected there. kennethaw88 • talk 02:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support – in most cases, objects with wheels have multiple wheels. sst✈^(discuss) 15:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Obvious primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2015 (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.

Wheels electric bikes

@Bkonrad:

Thank you for reverting my edit without an explanation. Considering the company is called WHEELS and the domain says WHEELS, I'd say it's relevant to this page. 144.178.0.128 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Darwin

Wikipedia is not for free advertising. You're spinning your WHEELS. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I knew someone would accuse me of that. I have zero affiliation with the company. If I did, I would have raved about their positive attributes.

Let's see... Lime has a page. Bird has a page. Jump has a page. Bolt has a page. Spin has a page. Skip has a page. Are all those advertisements?

Wheels falls into the same category of rentable dockless devices. I don't think it's an unreasonable request for an article to be written about it and that a link be included here.

The device is named WHEELS. To exclude it from a disambiguation page about things called "wheels" defies logic. 144.178.0.140 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Darwin

So write the article first. Disambiguation pages are not directories and only disambiguate existing articles. older ≠ wiser 19:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

That presents a chicken & egg problem. Their website does not provide enough details. That's why I came to Wiki looking for an article about it — to get information. Also, when I added the link I provided the caveat in the notes: "Added external link because there is no internal page." 144.178.0.140 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Darwin

You just don't get it. Wikipedia articles about notable companies must be based on media coverage from independent, reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's job to provide that coverage. If you can't find "enough details" elsewhere, the company doesn't deserve an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)