Jump to content

Talk:Personal transporter/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Creation of article

I created this article having left messages on the talk pages of various articles that fit into the category Category:Personal transporters. A quick search of Google images shows the sort of vehicles that fall into this category, most of which I have already highlighted in the article. I will work more on this over the come week or two, but would welcome input from others. PeterEastern (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Merging legal content

This merge has been completed PeterEastern (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I propose to merge the information about 'Use and regulation by country' for the different types of personal transporter (Self-balancing unicycle, Self-balancing scooter, electric skateboard, electric kick scooter) into this article, given that they do all seem to be treated similarly by the law. I proposed to leave the legals for Segway PT within that article because it may be treated differently due to its size.

I will leave notes on each of the other articles linking here and I won't act on proposal for a week to allow people time to comment. Thoughts?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support — But why stop there? All of these crufty, poorly-sourced, how-two-guide, sales-catalog, price-comparison-service articles could be merged entirely into Personal transporter. Most of the content is lists of manufactures and lists of products showing trivial differences in specifications and trivial availability information, such as Electric skateboard#Comparison, all of which should be excluded under various sections of the What Wikipedia is not policy. The overly-specific country-by country regulatory advice is prohibited by Wikipedia:NOTADVICE. It could be drastically condensed and generalized, especially since many of the same issues apply whether its an electric skateboard or kick scooter or one or two wheel self-balancing thingy. Segway PT has a section on the company history that belongs on Segway Inc. A country-by-country list of where Segways are available for short-term hire? Which countries precisely police have "begun using Segways to patrol certain public areas"? Totally out of control. Most of these articles were written by SPAs paid by the product marketing departments.

    Anyone willing to do the work to sift and merge all of this would be doing a great service. There's enough encyclopedic content for one article. Merge away.

    --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dennis. I agree re most of your points, other than the suggestion that all the trivia should be absorbed into this article and that there is only enough content for one article. If content doesn't belong in WP then it should be removed (and can I draw your attention to the section on Talk:Electric skateboard where I am proposing that we remove the comparison section to complain about?). Also... if the articles are then a bit thin I suggest that there are many opportunities to flesh them out as per response on Talk:Self-balancing scooter re the legal merge. And yes, I am intending to continue to work on these articles, but don't want to do it alone or without guidance/encouragement. Thanks for responding. PeterEastern (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I meant to say I think the unencyclopedic content should be deleted, and the remains moved into the target article, rather than keep any of the trivia and sales/shopping stuff. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally I would prefer to spend some time developing the content for the other articles as I think they are very different beasts and have their own stories to tell and do merit separate entries. I intend to spend more time on these articles. As such, can we reconsider whether they stand alone in a few months time? In the mean time, if there is any merging to do, the I can suggest some more appropriate candidates, including INMOTION SCV, Onewheel, Robstep and Toyota Winglet - however.... please respond in the next section 'Possible mergers': PeterEastern (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now completed the merge of legal content from the article mentioned in this section. I have however also added a proposal to Talk:Segway PT to also merge legal content from there into this one as the overlap is compelling. If you have comments to make then please make them there. PeterEastern (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible merges

In the above thread there is a proposal to "merge Self-balancing unicycle, Self-balancing scooter, electric skateboard, electric kick scooter entirely into this one and converting the other ones into redirects, keeping only the actual encyclopedic content." in response I suggested that they should be given time to develop and that I thought that they are very different beasts. I then proposed some other candidates for merging including INMOTION SCV, Onewheel Robstep and Toyota Winglet. Can I suggest that we use this section to discuss what merges might be appropriate for article in Category:Personal transporters?

Personally I find it hard to gauge when articles should be merged and when not. My suggestions for consideration however would be along these lines:

Thoughts?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Scope of article

To avoid scope creep I suggest that we limit it to the new legal class of vehicles covered by a new CEN standard under development that covers light electric vehicles without seats and self-balancing vehicles, with or without seats, intended primarily for the transportation of one person in urban environment. PeterEastern (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add an electric bicycle that only weighs 11 kg and folds quickly- making it fit for the definition of personal transporter. it is the only one of its kind. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.63.74 (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC) (unsigned comment by User:Adamaloni)
As I have explained repeatedly on your talk page and have also explained in the lead of this article, electric bicycles are out of scope because they have pedals. Assuming that the power assist is limited to 25km/h then it will be classed as a bicycle. If the assist is not speed limited then I think they come into a motorcycle class and a licence is required. Either way it is out of scope for this article. PeterEastern (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Let me understand how you think- you say the only reason for not allowing ebike to be personal transporter is because they got pedals? well, thats really without any pre definition of personal transporter . i mean where does it say personal transporter must not have pedals? and even the balance wheel have square pedals as you can see in the article also the fact that it answers both ebike and personal transporter definitions should not cause error in definition according to ven (logic theory) diagram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamaloni (talk • contribs) 05:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Have a read of this article which might make things clearer for you. PeterEastern (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
That article doesn't mention "personal transporter" anywhere. In fact, the title of this article appears to be a made-up term that isn't supported by sources, as far as I can tell. I see terms like "human transporter", "powered transporter", and "electric transporter", that last of which may be a trademark term by Segway. I'd say either powered bicycles would also fall under this topic, or the title should reflect what it's actually about. Or the article should be deleted due to lack of coverage of the topic.
The defining characteristic, based on the previous section on this talk page, appears to be electric vehicles without seats, or self-balancing vehicles. Possibly then, the title should be changed to remove that ambiguity, if that's what the article is actually about. "Electric seatless or self-balancing transporters" would be a title that excludes non-powered skateboards, scooters, and all bicycles. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

There are many terms being used for these devices at present. In time there may be one or two clear winners. Very happy to consider other candidates for the title, but suggest that we wait for the terms to shake down a bit before doing that. The term 'personal transporter' appears to have been coined by Segway, and is the term they use [1][2][3][4], is used by Airwheel[5][6] and also as a generic term that includes electric kick scooters[7] and electric skateboards[8]. Regarding the scope of the article, as I have explained CEN are close to completing a standard for this class of vehicle, which they refer to as 'Personal light electric vehicles'[9] and it is their definition that I have proposed as the scope for the article to avoid scope creep. Happy to discuss both the scope of the article and separately the title of the article. PeterEastern (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move to 'Rideable'

I have noticed the the simpler term 'rideable' is being used for this class of devices quite commonly now and propose to move this article over the redirect Rideable.

Here are some examples of the term in use:

When comparing the two terms using Google trends 'Rideable' scores 45 compared to 7 for 'Personal transporter'.

--PeterEastern (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just completed the move. PeterEastern (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@PeterEastern: Hi Peter, I've never seen the word "rideable" used this way. I checked the google hits for the four categories given in the first paragraph and they confirm that "personal transporter" is clearly more common:
Google hits for
term plus: 		"Personal transporter" "Rideable"
electric skateboards 44,200 32,100
electric kick scooters 7,900 4,760
self-balancing unicycles 9,190 742
Segway 190,000 47,700
...and these metrics will overestimate the use of "rideable" since they include the use of the term plus the use of the adjective (e.g. "a personal transporter can be rideable even during rain..." will give a hit for "rideable" without the word being used as the name for the thing). Ok to move back? Great floors (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This move is ridiculous. The change needs to get reverted and all other changes made to every linked article that were changed over should be reverted back. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
PeterEastern was perfectly justified in moving the article, especially after having courteously waited more than 10 days for comments, and hearing no opposition.

This isn't one of the cases where you can rely on a WP:Search engine test. The category of rideables -- and the usage of rideable as a noun -- is new. This category of vehicles hasn't been around many years, and for several years reliable sources were using trial and error to find a good term for this. When the Segaway appeared in 2001, it wasn't categorized with powered skateboards or scooters, and when the Uno (dicycle) got notice in 2005, it wasn't generally recognized as the same type of thing as a powered scooter or Segway. So you're going to get tons of search engine hits for those earlier years that never use rideable as a catchall noun for the category. That doesn't mean that now rideable isn't the best term. Looking at recent sources, it appears that consensus has coalesced around rideable as the general term, because obviously clunkers like personal light electric vehicle, personal mobility device or personal transporter are just the worst and nobody is going to really use words like that.

The page shouldn't be moved again, until someone goes to WP:RM#CM and requests a controversial move. IMHO rideable would win if it were put up for formal discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Since Rideable is the main article for Category:Personal transporters, it might be best to have an RfC on what the name of both the article and the category should be. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
PeterEastern got zero support for his proposed move and only justified it with seven webpages that use the term plus a Google Trends result, i.e. much less than the search engine test that you call insufficient. Great floors (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please don't be disingenuous. He didn't just get zero support; he got zero opposition. Zero interest was shown by anyone. Read Wikipedia:Moving a page. Move protection is only for special cases and nearly always temporary; normally, anyone can rename, just as anyone can edit. It's a fact of editing policy. It is a perfectly legitimate edit for anyone to move a page at will. You don't have to ask anyone's opinion at all. True, it is a best practice to find out whether or not a move is going to be controversial, and commendably, he did so. It saves the trouble of moving it back if someone doesn't like it, but it's not mandatory. PeterEastern went above and beyond the requirements, and was entirely justified in thinking nobody had a problem with the move. By all appearances, nobody cared at all. If you don't like how this went down, you have only yourself to blame for not paying enough attention when you had the opportunity.

Your characterization of the search engine evidence, both for and against, suggests you don't understand search engine results, and don't understand the arguments the results were being used for. When someone says "here are some examples" and they give seven, it is disingenuous to say they "only justified it with seven webpages". That's not what "some examples" means.

In short, please back off with these meta-arguments and ad hominem. Argue that this name or that name is better, but drop the stick on these complaints over who did what when. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't call someone disingenuous and then you reject their reply by simply saying they musn't understand search engines and arguing about a difference between +0 and -0 support. Other than a Google Trends page, no case has been made for this move and no one agreed it should be done. Great floors (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure I can. I just did. I gave an explanation of the search engine thing once, and you didn't to get it. I'm not going to keep re-explaining. Why do you keep going on about this after the page was moved back exactly as you wished? You got what you wanted. Now we've moved on to a requested move and your opinion is welcome in that discussion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow. I wasn't expecting to log in and find any reaction at all! Great to see engagement with this article. I do agree with him that we are playing catchup in a world which doesn't yet have a clear winning term yet for this very new class of devices. I will add further comments to the section below. PeterEastern (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2018

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: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal transporter → Rideable – There is no solid evidence that any term for this category of vehicle is better than any other, so per WP:COMMONNAME, a name must be chosen by consensus. Rideable sidesteps all the problems with the numerous failed attempts by giving a single piece of information ("you can ride it") which is applicable to everything in the category, while not adding details that only apply to some members of the category, such as electric. The evidence that sources are now coalescing around rideable is at least as convincing as the evidence favoring any of the other dozen+ alternatives.

Note that Category:Personal transporters refers to the same things as Personal transporter, and if consensus favors a move, that implies a concurrent move of the category. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


But the whole point is that the term is now being used as a noun. Possibly first used by Wired in 2015 but now used across major media outlets, in job adverts and by manufacturers. I give evidence for it's use in that way below. PeterEastern (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is sometimes being used as a noun. But that does not make it adequately unambiguous and recognizable as a noun (and does not make it the most accepted common name). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so the issue is simply about whether the use of the term as a noun to describe these devices is wide enough to justify a move at this time. As has been noted elsewhere it may be appropriate to defer a decision until the situation is clearer. I note JFG's vote below which echos this view.PeterEastern (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – There does not seem to be a widely-adopted common name for this category of "vehicles", so that the current title is no worse than any other. Besides, "rideable" sounds a bit fringe/edgy, and may be disconcerting to non-geek readers. — JFG talk 15:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a mood coming out that the term is still to 'fringe/edgy' for WP to adopt it at this point as you say. I have just added a usage example below from Digital Trends in Jan 2018 who still find it appropriate to use the term as if it is a new one to their readers: "Other trends are here to stay, including the market for products we call “rideables,” which includes hoverboards, e-scooters, and an array of one-wheeled and two-wheeled battery powered devices". (Digital Trends has been using the term since 2016 btw, but still felt it necessary to include the bit about 'for products we call "rideables"'). PeterEastern (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Right. Would be interesting to check if the neologism originated with this publication, and how far into mainstream it spreads. Too early anyway for an article title; fine to mention it in the lead paragraph though. — JFG talk 11:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Personal transporter is obviously a clunker that was chosen because nobody could think of anything better, and the dozen or more other equally inadequate terms (see Personal transporter#Terminology) are just as bad, but equally arguable. All of these terms are sandbagged with meaningless words -- transporter, vehicle, device, personal, electric -- that make the phrase longer and more awkward, but don't nail down what it refers to. Various search engine tests are of limited value, because you will get lots of hits from the last 20+ years when reliable sources were trying out, and discarding, various terms. Whichever term is now the preferred one, it will probably not have the most hits unless you narrow the scope to only recent years, and are selective about which sources to include.

We have significant evidence that reliable sources have been searching for what to call these things for years, probably dating to the introduction of the Segway in 2001. Terms that have been tried include:

  • electric rideable
  • electric personal transporter
  • personal electric vehicle
  • personal transporter
  • portable electric vehicle
  • portable personal vehicle
  • portable transporter.
  • personal mobility device
  • personal e-mobility device
  • electrically motorized board
  • personal light electric vehicle
  • electric personal assistive mobility device
  • powered transporters
  • Engins de déplacement personnel
  • e-scooter
  • personal EV

What all of these have in common is that they are long and awkward, and don't tell you anything. Most of them are sandbagged with terms that are so vague as to be useless, such as transporter or vehicle (which could include ships, spacecraft, helicopters...) or device (which could mean literally anything). Phrases like portable vehicle are just as useless. What kind of vehicle is not portable? It doesn't mean you can pick up a Segway and throw it over your shoulder. Why bother with so many words if they don't add any essential information? None of them really tell you what this category actually is. Terms like personal e-mobility device could plausibly refer to a Tesla Model S or a Diver propulsion vehicle.

The words personal and electric or e- are maybe kind of meaningful, but not really. Personal can mean single person, but "personal vehicle" is often used to refer to a private automobile, one's personal car, as opposed to public transportation or a company car.

E- or electric does impart important information, since almost all of these are electric. Mostly. Except skateboards, kick scooters, and hover boards exist that use 49cc two-stroke gasoline engines, dating back to the MotoBoard of the 1970s. These are also rideables. The Messerschmitt KR200 bubble car in the 1985 movie Brazil was called a "personal transporter". And it is: it's single-person and/or not a public vehicle, and it transports. If we're going to have a vague and unhelpful term, at least rideable is shorter.

A naive search engine test is going to give you misleading results, because you're going to get hits from a couple decades of sources using lots of different terms while trying to figure out what to call them. It will fail to give sufficient weight to which name is finally settled upon. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion piece by Great Floors

A search engine is useful as a sanity check. I've never heard the word "rideable" being used as a noun, but, am I just surrounded by unusual people? So I checked Google, and used a method which is unfairly exaggerated in favour of "rideable" because the hits for that word will include hits for the noun and for the adjective (e.g. "most Segways are rideable in rainy conditions...") and yet the numbers are still clearly in favour of "personal transporter" (see table below). If there's some term other than "personal transporter" that's more widely used, then a move would be fine, but "rideable" is not. Great floors (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Google hits for each vehicle
category mentioned in the intro: 		Plus "Personal transporter"
(including quotation marks) 		Plus "Rideable"
(including quotation marks)
electric skateboard 48,400 34,100
electric kick scooter 7,980 4,680
self-balancing unicycle 12,100 8,300
Segway 193,000 45,700
electric skateboards (plurals) 6,300 84,300
electric kick scooters (plurals) 4,540 393
self-balancing unicycles (plurals) 5,420 944
Segways (plurals) 26,100 22,700
Great floors (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
One of the reasons these results are unreliable, in addition to the problem of what year your results are coming from, is that Google customizes your search results according to your history with Google. When I do the first search signed into Google as myself, it gives me only 39,100 hits for "personal transporter" "electric skateboard", not 44,200, and I get 36,200 for "rideable" "electric skateboard" not 32,100. So it's telling you that "personal transporter" gets 37% more hits, but it's telling me that that term gets only 8% more hits than "rideable". I'm sure other editors who try it will get a range of different results. If I open up a Tor Browser and try to get a clean Google search result, whatever that means, I get 46,100 for "personal transporter" "electric skateboard", and 29,700 for "rideable" "electric skateboard", giving personal transporter a 55% advantage! If we can trust it. But can we? These Google hits are all over the map.

Try the same test at Bing, and rideable gets 583,000, and personal transporter gets only 475,000, so rideable has 22% more hits, not less than personal transporter. At Bing, "rideable" Segway gets over 5 million hits, and only ~219k for "personal transporter" Segway. Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Search engines. Go figure.

The whole exercise is skunked. If there were a clear, overwhelming leader then we could say that is the common name. But it's muddled, as I said: there is no solid evidence favoring any term, and so we must choose by consensus. "Transporter" is a big long word that tells us almost nothing, and personal is a second pretty long word that kind of hints at a single-person vehicle but not necessarily. Neither tells us the critical fact that makes this a new, popular category of vehicle: that these new small vehicles are very cheap, very slow, and use either electric motors, or very small gas engines. At least "Ridable" is short and snappy, and isn't sandbagged with uninformative extra syllables. (btw, your !vote goes up in the survey section) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, search engine hit counts vary because they are an approximation. But the trend is clearly in favour of "personal transporter". There are good reasons why people don't use Bing in search engine hit comparisons. I've moved my vote, thanks for pointing that out. Great floors (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
As I also note below in my comment piece, if one searches Bing and Google for the noun in the plural 'rideables' (to exclude any use of the term as a verb) the results are pretty compelling and relevant to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, saying 'the trend is clearly in favour of personal transporter' is simply false. It only favors personal transporter if you cherry pick your search engine, and ignore numerous caveats at Wikipedia:Search engine test. For example: WP:HITS "the hit count at the top of the page is unreliable and should usually not be reported." Also: " At times, the 'match' count estimate can be significantly different (by one or more orders of magnitude) to the total count of results shown on the last results page." And WP:GFG Google searches may report vastly more hits than will ever be returned to the user, especially for exact quoted expressions. (bold in the original). The claim "people don't use Bing in search engine hit comparisons" is baseless. All of the potential problems with hit counts apply at least as much to Google as the do to Bing. Saying one is better than the other because you like the result is not convincing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dennis. A more forensic approach would be to review the terms using being leading publications reporting on this sector. Which would be appropriate? I can think of Wired and The Verge but I might be biased. Also terms used by manufacturers - Swagtron have clearly adopted the term 'electric rideable']. PeterEastern (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • But there was no cherry-picking. I used the world's most popular search engine, I put both terms in quotation marks, and I used the four terms that were in the intro paragraph. Great floors (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Can I suggest that when comparing terms we use the plurals to removed use as an adjective from the results. For 'rideables' I get 317,000 results on Google and for 'personal transporters' I get 60,000 (for 'personal transporter' in the singular I get 411,000 but it isn't easy to do a similar search for rideable for the reasons you have identified). I note Dennis's cautionary note about trusting the total search results though. For me what is important is nearly all the early page results for rideables from Bing and Goole describe the subject of this article. PeterEastern (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Great floors claiming Google is reliable and Bing is not is cherry picking. All I have to say to that is "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Wikipedia:Search engine test has a reasonable explanation for what search engines can and can't tell us, and gives no reasons why we should trust one engine over the other. Tweakig the results with plurals and whatnot gives somewhat different result, but in the end, we have a muddled situation. I don't think Bing's 5M hits vs Googles 200K for rideable+segway means all that much, and rideables+personal transporters doesn't mean all that much.

A far more convincing argument would be to cite recent and authoritative sources, and use the terms they prefer, rather than count hits on totally random webistes. Most of the hits we are getting are what WP:HITS calls popular usage bias, that "popular usage and urban legend is often reported over correctness". We need someone who knows what they're talking about to give us what the correct term is, not 100,000 rando bloggers and commenters who probably don't. Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't choose facts by taking a vote; we favor rational thinking coming from reliable sources.

In a case like this, where there are no reliable sources to clearly telling us which is correct, we don't fall back on voodoo and superstition, which is all these hit counts amount to. We admit that the evidence is inconclusive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that I used the most commonly used search engine and I stuck in four terms that someone else wrote in the article intro. I was as objective as possible. You've stuck in words of your choosing into a lesser-used search engine of your choice until you got results that suited you. Now you're blaming singular vs. plurals, ok, I've added plurals to the table now. Oh look, there's one result that favours "rideables". ...but if you want to argue that this one result changes the situation then you're going to have retract everything negative you've said about "cherry-picking" :-) Great floors (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we have got all we can out of search result counts to be honest. Dennis has already explained to you that search results are sensitive to the person doing the search and to confirm that; the results I get for the above searches are very different from the one's you quote. I am also not 'blaming plurals vs singular' I was simply pointing out that the plural is a way of teasing apart results for nouns and adjectives.PeterEastern (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion piece by PeterEastern

We are clearly in a tricky point given that there is no agreed reliable shared term for this class of devices, indeed the fact that electric skateboards and electric standing scooter and other similar devices form a single class of vehicles is only becoming clear now that the media and legislators are trying to typify them. Fyi, I believe that term Personal Transporter originated with Segway Inc. with the introduction of the Segway PT (PT being an abbreviation of Personal Transporter). Clearly this term has not sat well with many people given to number of other terms are currently being used by regulators and the media to describe them.

I would like make it clear that we are searching for the reliable general term that covers all the included devices, including electric skateboards, standing electric scooters and electric unicycles but is not over general. Some of the example terms used above, such as 'motorised boards' are descriptive of only some of these. One problem I personally have with the term Rideable is that it would leave the article vulnerable to scope creep, with later contributors insisting on including information relating to any device that can be ridden, including ones that are not powered, which left be wondering about the term 'Electric Rideable' which is also used in the media.

Looking at this again, the plural 'rideables' (which excludes any use of the term as a adjective) seems to be pretty compelling - all the results that I get for the term from Google and Bing seem super relevant to the subject of this article.

To be clear I am relaxed about leaving it as Personal Transporter for the time being if we are not confident about a better term. We could decide to revisit this in 6 months time when it might have shaken out a bit.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
It's true that a motorcycle or jet ski or a horse could be construed as a "rideable", but what term isn't susceptible to the same issue? "Personal transporter" could be construed to include a motorcycle or horse or jet ski, or ultralight aircraft or jet pack or even a car, for that matter. No article title is required to contain an intensive definition of the topic. That's why WP:OBVIOUS is where we write a sentence saying what the topic is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Point taken. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
One issue with postponing the discussion is that, because this Talk page doesn't have many contributors, there's the risk that a discussion in six month's time won't be seen by myself, Steve Lux, Jr., or James Allison. Or maybe I could launch the discussion in six month's time and it mightn't be seen by PeterEastern or Dennis Bratland. A false consensus could be reached just because no one turned up. At the very least, if this discussion is held again at a later date, the five people who've been involved this time should be asked for their input on the new context:
  • Steve Lux, Jr.
  • James Allison
  • Great Floors
  • PeterEastern
  • Dennis Bratland
Great floors (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Everyone is in charge of their own watchlist or notification bots. But there is not a list of owners of an article; see WP:OWN. If someone doesn't happen to be active when a discussion happens to take place, or they chose not to be notified, Wikipedia has to somehow find a way to carry on without them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
No. You're proposing forum shopping, which is not allowed. Wikipedia works by consensus. You can't just cancel a discussion which has formed a consensus you don't like, and then hope that your proposal will pass unexamined if you raise it at a later date. Great floors (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, by suggesting deferring a decision I was simply suggesting that if there was not a clear winning term for this collection of devices at the present time then we wait until there is. Please don't make this adversarial. We are not forum shopping, we are simply considering waiting until the big world out there has come to a clearer decision. PeterEastern (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I do see the merit of discussing this again in the future. Maybe "rideable" will take off, or some other term. But if a failed proposal gets relaunched in a few months time and "passed" simply because fewer people see the proposal the second time, this would look a lot more like forum shopping than concensus. I'm talking about the result here rather than intent (i.e. bad/good faith). So let's avoid that. Great floors (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I hate to keep coming back here to re-post the correct definition of things, but the correct definition of forum shopping is at, of course, WP:FORUMSHOP. You really need to try to understand that consensus can change. Your repeated handwringing that somebody at some future point might re-submit a proposal and hypothetically there won't be enough of the "right" people to supply the "right" outcome, well, look, it's Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. Nobody is gatekeeper for which future editors might or might not participate. Nobody can insist that specific editors be present for anything.

Could Wikipedia be overrun by barbarians in the future? Yes. It could happen. "Anyone can edit" means anyone can edit. If that bothers you, you need to find an appropriate forum to deal with it. Have you tried Village pump? This is a simple move discussion.

You're repeatedly casting aspersions that there is a nefarious plot to push through an unpopular idea because of this totally unfounded suspicion that those opposed will all be gone for some reason. Are all of you going fishing together? You didn't invite me? None of us said anything about a future discussion intended to exclude you. Nobody suggested any such thing except you. Several editors said that the terminology is in flux, and with the passage of time, our sources might settle on a different term, or show more definite support for a new term. The spoke of sources, not editor participation.

Assume good faith is not s merely suggestion, it's a necessary behavior guideline. If you actually believe anybody is engaging in a plot or is gaming the system, you should take that complaint and your evidence to an appropriate noticeboard. If you have no evidence, then drop it.

It appears your preferred outcome is winning here. Yet you're crying foul and trying to work the ref? You need to take yes for an answer. Stop casting aspersions. Stop making unfounded accusations. Stop making uncivil personal criticism. Focus on content. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Usage of Rideable as a term to describe these devices

This list can be expanded to illustrate uses of the term Rideable in this context. Please ensure that any additions include the work and the date (ordered chronologically). The first reference I have found so far is Wired in July 2015, where they suggest that they are introducing a new term for the devices. PeterEastern (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • "Rideables are so hot right now. We put them to the test". Wired. 21 July 2015. Enter the slew of small, electric, personal transportation devices that we're calling "rideables." Thrust into the spotlight by celebrities (the kung-fu masters of laziness), there is now a veritable industry of electronic chariots
  • "Skate or Die: Are Electric Skateboards the Best Rideable?". Fortune. 8 January 2016. One of the big stories at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas this year is "rideables," a category including foldable scooters, talking Segways, and, of course, those omnipresent hoverboards
  • "Hoverboards Aren't The Rideables Winner". Clean Technica. 19 January 2016. It's time to declare a clear winner in the rideables space, and it's not the hoverboard. This is about rideables from a transit perspective, not a toy perspective. Rideables are small, personal electric vehicles. They can be carried onto mass transit or put in car trunks.
  • "My quest to find the perfect rideable at CES". Engadget. 7 January 2017. ..for me they pale in comparison to another smaller form of transportation: rideables. Spanning skateboards, scooters and bikes, these little machines are perfect for a city-dweller such as myself. With a camera in hand, I've been scouring the show trying to find the very best.
  • "Forget hoverboards! Jyro reveals self-balancing electric rideables with ONE wheel". Daily Mail. 7 January 2017.
  • "Move over, Segway: The rideables are coming". DW. 9 January 2017. The Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas is over, but smart mobility technology has just begun to take off. 16 years after the introduction of the Segway, so-called ride-ons, or "rideables," are becoming increasingly popular, useful and affordable thanks to advancements in battery technology and electric motors.
  • "Hovertronix Launches New Online Hoverboard Store To Help People Buy Electronic Rideables". Reuters. 17 February 2017. About Hovertronix: Hovertronix is a brand new online shop where customers can shop for the newest technology in the electric rideables industry
  • "'Rideables' could be the future of urban mobility – if only they were legal". Citymetric. 16 May 2017. "Rideables", as they are known, are not intended to supersede bicycles, but to democratise access to the cycle lanes that we are all, ultimately, paying for. They come in many forms, from electrified versions of traditional systems – the Emicro push scooter and Evolve skateboard, for example – to less conventional personal transportation solutions like the URB-E.
  • "5 Lessons You Can Learn From The Entrepreneur Who Invented The Hoverboard". Forbes. 4 December 2017. For Chen, his core value is quality; and he wants his rideables to provide a magical experience for his customers
  • "Electric rideables How getting around for fun is getting charged". RAC Australia. 12 December 2017. There's a lot to love about electric rideables – they're eco-friendly, could help to manage congestion and they're fun. Here are just some of the many electric-powered transport devices on offer
  • "Mechanical Engineer with Electric Rideables Experiance". LinkedIn. Job advertisment: DGL Group a leader in the electric rideable category under the brand Hover -1 is looking for a mechanical engineer to over look new product development, Supply chain and product development and production of all our new electric rideable. Hover-1 is the largest us Manufacture of Hoverboards, Electric bikes, electric motorcycles
"Experiance"? Is that in the original? (I don't have a LinkedIn account and apparently can't see the job advert without one.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That is a verbatim transcript of the advert. PeterEastern (talk) 08:49, 12 June 2018 (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.

Excluding gasoline-fueled units?

I have just removed the following phrase ('as well as gasoline-fueled motorized scooters or skateboards, typically using two-stroke engines of less than 49 cc (3.0 cu in) displacement') from the lead because no country has legalised gasoline-powered units or intends to to my knowledge. I have also removed the two citations associated with this claim from the lead, firstly because they don't support the claim and because a lead should not normally include citations, the lead should be a summary of the cited content in the main article:

  • 1st citation [10] This is talking about the wider group of vehicles that are currently illegal in the UK based on unchanged legislation, some of which dates back to 1835.
  • 2nd citation: [11] because it is again talking about a much wider range of vehicles that could be legalised, including non-portable units, units with seats, wheelchairs etc.

Are we ok with this restricted scope? Personally I don't believe that ICE versions of these units never be legalised or indeed be popular due to their noise, pollution, complexity and overall messiness and I am keen to keep the scope of this article tightly around the class of vehicle that has been legalised in various countries in recent months/years.

Thought?

-- PeterEastern (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is mostly a case of WP:RECENTISM. The motorized scooters and skateboards of the 1970s and 80s were all internal combustion, such as the MotoBoard. And of course the great granddaddy of them all, the 1915 Autoped, which is often shoehorned into the motorcycle or motor scooter category, but clearly it is a rideable, er, personal transporter. Even if these no longer existed, Wikipedia is not a catalog or shopping guide of products you can buy and use today, but rather an objective observer of everything, with no preference for a particular time period. Similarly, if Wikipedia were a shopping guide and a how-to advice service, we would recommend only vehicles which were legal. But Wikipedia merely describes the world, rather than prescribe what is best. Loud, dirty, questionably (un) safe two-stroke engine scooters and skateboards are ridden on sidewalks and city streets without bothering to learn if they are technically legal. Much like motorized scooters on Dutch bike paths, these things can be widely used without being legal.

The other WP:BIAS isuse is when we say "legal" that reflects our assumptions about what is legal where we live, the US, or the UK, or perhaps Canada or Australia, with littile concern for the rest of the world. Successors to the Autoped are being sold [12][13]. I haven't even researched other coverage of modern versions of the MotoBoard and similar vehicles; there is sufficient reason to include internal combustion here.

Obviously, the new wave of improved li-ion battery personal transporters should get the most attention, other than reviewing the 1910-1920s and 1970-80s history and mentioning the combustion niche that exists, sometimes in the gray market. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See timeline at Motorized scooter#History. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I agree with all that you say, and much fuller to include information about these earlier incarnations, however I will have at adjusting the article to reduce the emphasis, particularly in the lead, of gasoline devices. Let me have a go at that and then respond as you see fit to my changes. As always, Wikipedia articles works best when they are pulled, squashed, challenged and argued over a bit during their creation! I am pleased that this article is now getting more attention to allow this to happen. PeterEastern (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_transporter/Archive_1&oldid=1013137753"