Talk:Tesla

Content

All meanings derive from Nikola Tesla, so the lemma should redirect there and not to this disambig. It's not ambiguous at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.50.39 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirection

This page should redirect to Nikola Tesla, the the disambiguation at Tesla (disambiguation) J. D. Redding

First, why is this so crucial? And second, if such a move is necessary, it should be done by actually moving the page, not switching content with copy/paste which breaks the page history. --Minderbinder 15:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As stated in Talk:Tesla (disambiguation) ... by another user "query was directed to Nikola Tesla as all of the other links in this disambiguation are somehow derivitive of him". J. D. Redding 15:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That quote is incomplete. The full quote is: "I was wondering if there had been any discussion as to whether a search for tesla should come here (as it currently does) or whether it should go to Nikola Tesla. Personally I would prefer if the search query was directed to Nikola Tesla as all of the other links in this disambiguation are somehow derivitive of him." (emphasis added) This is one opinion of a user, not consensus, and there is no indication that the user actually made the proposed change. Natalie 15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)It would be good to remeber Tesla with a new accelarator! Tesla should have his scientific "due"! The tesla uinit is good But the name TESLA still doesnt mean much to the general poipulation.THEEDSON1 (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be redirect.

It is perferable to redirect it to the Nikola Tesla.OK why not a mention of Global Enegry Indpendence Day/Tesla remeberance day Or the Tesla Society?

I would suppose that the user didn't make the change because of editors that would do what is happening now.

J. D. Redding 16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [PS., made a note of discussion to reverse this ill begotten decision not to redirect to Nikola Tesla, at the talk page there.]

Discussion there is a good way to handle it. And if there is consensus to redirect Tesla to Nikola Tesla, the disambig that is currently at Tesla needs to be moved (actually moved, using the Move functionality of this site, NOT copy/pasted to another page) first. --Minderbinder 17:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if Tesla is going to redirect to any specific article it should be Tesla (unit) as that is a common noun whose full name is Tesla. Indeed, I believe it used to redirect there and I was surprised it doesn't still when I looked at that article. Maybe, per WP:DAB, if there isn't agreement on a target that is the overwhelmingly most common usage, that indicates that the disambiguation page is a good target. Having said that, if one redirects to a single target, one can include a link in the hatnote on that article to the other most common usage as well as the disambiguation page thereby ensuring the least number of clicks for the overwhelming majority of users.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point is a good one. A significant disagreement about the target for a search term is a good indication that a disambiguation page is the best target, so maintaining the status quo for the time being seems like the best idea. Natalie (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inventor of Radio and electric motor????

Through us goverment patents there is evidence that Tesla invented the radio and the electric motor. Not just propaganda !!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnagr (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Serbian?

Tesla was born in Croatia, ethnically Serb. I don't think it is helpful to refer to his ethnicity or nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrecife (talk • contribs) 21:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no. Tesla made contributions to both radio and to electric motors, and this is what is reflected in the patents referred to, but he was hardly the first inventor of either. Even the AC induction motor was demonstrated before Tesla. Tesla's contributions were very significant, but he didn't "invent" it. Jeh (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move 2012

The following discussion is an archived 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: Move and redirect Tesla to Nikola Tesla. Rough consensus, supported by various measures, that Nikola Tesla is the primary topic of the title "Tesla". Cúchullain ^t/c 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Tesla → Tesla (disambiguation) – It has been agreed in discussions that items in this page are named after Nikola Tesla, so the last name Tesla should link to Nikola Tesla's page. Previous discussions have not reached consensus, but there has been no activity in regards to new discussion for several years. Kreachure (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I actually came here expecting to support, but given that neither Edison or Curie redirect to the scientists, I think the status quo is fine. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The comparison is a bit unfair given that both "Edison" and "Curie" are names that refer to several people and items other than the scientists. There are many articles of people with those last names unrelated to Thomas Alva and Marie. Compare this with Einstein, a surname that, like Tesla, is uncommon, and doesn't appear in any other articles other than those named after the scientist. Kreachure (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Based on the popularity, Tesla should link to Nikola Tesla. Nikola Tesla is viewed seven times more than the next most viewed page, Tesla Motors.

90 Day page view stats

• Nikola Tesla: 1,047,177 (11,635/day)
• Tesla Motors: 145,260 (1614/day)
• Tesla Roadster: 131,348 (1459/day)
• Tesla (unit): 73,748 (819/day)
• Tesla (band): 56,870 (632/day)
• Tesla (Bleach): 45581 (506/day)

According to WP:DAB, specifically WP:PTOPIC:

• A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

• A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

I would conclude that Nikola Tesla is the primary topic sought when a user searches for the term 'Tesla'. – MrX 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• The page view stats are interesting but how many people access the Nikola Tesla page by typing just "Tesla" (rather than "Nikola Tesla" or by linking from another article)? I don't deny that Nikola Tesla is more viewed than all other Teslas but that doesn't mean it's the primary target for those searching for simply "Tesla". —  AjaxSmack  22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess there's no way for us to know. I can only offer one more statistic: page views for this disambiguation page in the past 90 days: 72,394 (804/day).

If I understand the guidelines correctly, it seems that 'Nikola Tesla' would qualify as a primary topic based on long-term significance and usage (as measured by page views). – MrX 23:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"I guess there's no way for us to know" is a good argument for keeping this a disambiguation page. As far as long-term significance/educational value goes, tesla (unit) also fits that to a t. —  AjaxSmack  00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support How many remember that his first name is Nikola, or know how to spell Nikola? 73,280 over the last 90 days have hit this dis page. Statistically 90% were looking for Nikola Tesla. Put a tophat on the page "Tesla redirects here, for the car..." Apteva (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support. I would support moving on a trial basis. If the page views for the disambiguation are an indication of people looking for the person, the number should drop significantly after the move. If after 90 or 180 days the traffic to the disambiguation page remains high, then we can reconsider the move. 12:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support based on the stats provided and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, if the word "Telsa" comes up, it's a reference to the person, either directly or obliquely. bd2412 T 13:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • If I'm looking for tesla (unit), I'm not seeking a person, obliquely or otherwise. —  AjaxSmack  02:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Considering that the unit is named for the scientist, you are "obliquely" searching for him. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
      • No, not in the least. Many people searching for units could care less who they were named for, only for what they represent. And the linkage between the unit and the person they are named for is sometimes highly tenuous. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Nikola's 90-day pageview stats may be artificially inflated by recent attention given to him with his name in the news due to The Oatmeal's Kickstarter campaign. Powers ^T 18:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The page views are probably somewhat inflated because of the Oatmeal fundraising efforts, but the article has had consistently high page views (~10,000/month) for quite a while. – MrX 18:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, all the items on the disambig page are either named in Nikola Tesla's honor or else vanishingly obscure. --Xiaphias (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per established Wikipedia guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nikola Tesla meets both separate requirements there to be primary topic (usage & long-term significance), and meeting only one of them would actually be enough to qualify. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But usage has not been established. The above stats merely show that "Nikola Tesla" is more viewed than "Tesla" which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The stats do nothing to show where people searching for "Tesla" (only) actually intend to go. And tesla (unit) among others has long-term significance. —  AjaxSmack  02:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • As far as the unit, most non-scientist have never heard of the unit, and don't even know what magnetic flux is. Unlike Ohm, Volt, Watt, etc, that all measure things that laymen understand, the tesla does not. Laymen understand that Tesla is a scientist and a car, and maybe something else, and we write for the layman, not the scientist. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Establishing usage in the sense you imagine is an impossible and therefore irrelevant task. Tesla (unit) does have a little long-term significance looking forward into the future if you were to view it in a vacuum by itself, but it does not have any long-term significance relative to a topic that is 100 years older and is actually the subject it was named after. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A "tesla" is a unit of magnetic flux density, or at least this is the encyclopedic meaning, per Britannica and Columbia. Kauffner (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No discussant has been able to show that the vast majority of users typing "Tesla" in the search box are seeking the person. —  AjaxSmack  02:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just curious how that could be "shown" for any article, short of mind reading? I think Apteva did as good a job as possible above, by explaining how many of us coming here for the first time either didn't remember what his first name was or didn't remember how to spell it (true with me). Put that together with the massive imbalance in page hits and I think he has shown it as well as possible for any primary topic on Wikipedia. This is the textbook case that the guideline was created for. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The way we judge where someone wanted to go when they go to a dis page like this is to assume that the same percentage wanted to go to the articles on the dis page. So for example, if there were two pages on a Foo dis page, Foo A and Foo B, and one received twice as many views as the other, we would assume that 1/3 wanted to get to the one with half as many views, and that 2/3 wanted to get to the other one. Since there are very few views of tesla the unit, we assume that not many wanted to go there. While it is mathematically possible that all 74,280 who typed in tesla were looking for the unit, it is extremely unlikely, because we know from experience that most people get to articles by clicking on links or at least directly to the article from say google, and very few get there by typing in the article name, so the assumption of assigning hits to the dis page proportionately to the proportion of views of the articles on the dis page seems quite reasonable. Apteva (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support BUT.... See Ohm, Volt, Watt, Ampere, Joule. Related to the other units in this particular field, this one has always been the odd man out (pun intended). - DVdm (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for that? Otherwise your vote reads like an oppose. Do you really think significantly more people are familiar with an ohm than a tesla? --BDD (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha yes, I see what you mean. For evidence, open these articles and look at the "For other meanings, see ... (disambiguation)" links on top of each. The idea is to have the same behaviour here, and I'm very supportive of that. Whether the bare article points to the person or to the unit, is of somewhat less importance, although I would prefer the unit, not the person. - DVdm (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in titles is really a consideration only when all other things are equal. There are counter-examples of units that don't have the base name because they are not considered the primary topic (e.g., Lumen (unit), Siemens (unit), Pascal (unit), Gray (unit), Henry (unit), Weber (unit), Mole (unit), and many others at Category:Units of measure. older ≠ wiser 17:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Am I misreading, or do you want Tesla to be about the unit? The nominator wants it to redirect to Nikola Tesla. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not misreading. I don't want anything, but If I could choose, I would take Tesla for the unit, Nikola Tesla for the man, Tesla (disambiguation) for the rest. Ditto for Pascal, but nitto for the others mentioned earlier by Bkonrad. But does all this really matter? No, not to me. - DVdm (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose After reading the entire discussion, I don't see that the case has been made for the scientist being the primary topic. Certainly not in the proposal, but also not in any of the comments. The unit and the car are too likely to be sought with search term "tesla". A primary topic should dominate at least the first page of results when the term in question is used in a Google search, but using the google test, the first hit is Tesla Motors. The dab page should remain at Tesla. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe a picture would help:

[Did it occur to anyone that Tesla motors is paying google to have their name come up first?]--Apteva (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Google doesn't permit that. Only Google AdWords does this and they are noted as distinct from the general search returns per U.S. regulations. Google has enough antitrust problems with FTC already. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Even without paying google, there are third party companies that specialize in improving search engine results. Apteva (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

While I actually disagree with the criteria that a primary topic also needs to be more oftenly searched for than all of the other possibilities, this achieves it by 2:1 - 452,807 for all others, and over a million for Nikola Tesla. When there are twenty or thirty items the sum of all of them often exceeds the primary, even when the primary gets ten times as many views as the next most common. Apteva (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

As I noted above, the problem for me is that although it is clear that "Nikola Tesla" is far more popular of a page than the other Teslas, there has been no way to show whether it is the primary topic when users search for "Tesla" without the forename. Support for a move had been made on guessing that it is. However, there is a similar discussion currently going on at Talk:Lincoln that may offer some aid. That disambiguation page uses a special parenthetical redirect, "Lincoln (president)" to guide readers from the dab page to the article on Abraham Lincoln. This allows editors to determine almost exactly how many users who type "Lincoln" are actually searching for the president.

I propose that a similar method be used here for a short period (30-60 days) to determine more precisely how many users who type "Tesla" are looking for the physicist. Simply changing the link to a redirect would allow this. I just created "Tesla (physicist)" and it has no incoming links. I am changing the redirect per WP:BOLD and hope others will allow time to see the results. A move would clearly be in order at the end of such a period if the physicist is shown to be the primary topic linked from the dab page. —  AjaxSmack  02:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that approach is useful, however since Tesla (physicist) is the only redirect, then we will only know the total hits to the dab page and the total hits to the redirect page. The difference will be the total hits to all of the other pages. I think better results would be achieved is each of the major links (tesla unit, Tesla Motors, Tesla roadster, Tesla (band) and Tesla (bleach)) were also redirects. Hopefully that makes sense. - MrX 03:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense but I'm not sure it's necessary to determine primary topic ("A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." [my emphasis]) —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Support the trial and methodology, and suggest that at the cost of cluttering the WP:RM backlog we put this move on hold until we have some results. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Backlogs can be cut by relisting or closing as no consensus -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend leaving it open. Closing and reopening is not necessary. Nor do I think this experiment will produce any surprising results. Apteva (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Lincoln experiment is flawed, though, as it only creates a redirect for Abraham Lincoln, it leaves no clue as to how many clicked on any of the other choices, or how many clicked on none. This month, there were 6,596 views of Lincoln and 2,447 of Lincoln (president), vs 233,728 for Abraham Lincoln and 4,115 for Lincoln, Nebraska, and 3,834 for Lincoln (automobile). Apteva (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Created redirects to everything on the page - other than wiktionary, etc. I suggest a week is plenty of time to see a trend. Apteva (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The extension is really irrelevant since none of the other topics are being suggested as being the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no harm in Ajax' experiment, other than it being completely unnecessary. This primary topic issue is no different than any other on Wikipedia. We have a method that has wide consensus and has been used for a long time... and this isn't it. Yes it is true that page traffic & Google traffic are approximations of what people are really thinking, but they're really close enough and that is the way it has always been done. This idea that the primary hasn't been demonstrated is no different for all the other topics, yet they get decided routinely in the standard way, based on traffic. We're doing this backwards: In light of the standard methods of Determining a primary topic, the onus is on you to prove that this topic is somehow unique or different that all other topics, and to prove how traffic is somehow incorrect in this unique case; and you haven't done that... so we need to stick to the methods in the guideline. If you want to lobby for a new method & interpretation of policy, this isn't the place to do it. This should go to the WP:DAB talk page first, and spelled out clearly on that page by consensus if this method is going to be the new guideline. --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no good way to tell how much of the traffic for Nikola comes through the dab page. Ajax's experiment is intended to provide a method to gauge this traffic. If we see that most of the traffic to the dab page goes to the scientist page, that is a very strong indication of primary topic. If not, then the case for being a primary topic is not so clear. older ≠ wiser 12:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I understand the objections to AjaxSmacks' suggestion. It may give us additional insight, although I doubt that it would be conclusive in light of other data and the discussion here.

Another set of data to consider per Determining a primary topic is the number of article mainspace inbound wikilinks.

• Nikola Tesla: 1862
• Tesla (unit): 382
• Tesla Motors: 220
• Tesla Roadster: 196
• Tesla (band): 201
• Tesla (Bleach): 0
• Tesla (opera): 15
• Tesla (company): 19
• Tesla, California: 4

Nikola Tesla has more than twice as many links as all other (potentially ambiguous) topics combined. - MrX 14:50, 6 November 2012 (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.

Page views

Tesla (when it was a disambiguation page) 7299

from there clicked on:

• Nikola Tesla 388 (311 clicks the first day, 13/day thereafter)
• Tesla (band) 215
• Tesla (Bleach) 20
• Tesla (opera) 9
• Clive Barker 5
• Nvidia Tesla 48
• Tesla (company) 86
• Tesla Motors 685
• Tesla Roadster 81
• Tesla Science Center at Wardenclyffe 6
• Nikola Tesla Museum 23
• Tesla, California 4
• 2244 Tesla 7
• Tesla (unit) 450
• Tesla coil 44
• Tesla Fault 6

No indication on the remaining 5,222 (72%), except that many of them learned all they wanted about Tesla, or decided to type in Nikola Tesla instead of clicking on Tesla (physicist) particularly starting on the second day. Apteva (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-opening the primary topic question?

Can we re-open the question of Nikola Tesla being the primary topic here? I get burned by this all the time whenever I try and get to Tesla (unit). It seems like the primary analysis was based on the fact that Tesla is a plausible search term for Nikola Tesla, and that Nikola Tesla is a more popular page than the other plausible search terms. This seems inappropriate, however, given that there are a great many articles that actually have the title Tesla. The above analysis of click-throughs seems to indicate that there isn't a primary topic (since the order of magnitudes of the numbers all seem pretty similar), and that to the extent that there is a most popular topic, it's Tesla Motors.

Frankly, even without the click-through analsysis, I'm still dubious about whether or not it's appropriate to redirect Tesla to Nikola Tesla. For one thing, there's no more precise (plain english) term for either Tesla (band) or Tesla (unit), for example, but there are clear and obviously more precise terms for Nikola Tesla and Tesla Motors. Even Tesla Motors is commonly referred to simply as "Tesla" in the same way that the Ford Motor Company is essentially never referred to as "Ford Motor Company", almost always as "Ford". I would say that calling Tesla by his last name without mentioning his first name happens much more rarely than Albert Einstein is referred to without his first name. As pointed out in the original discussion, this redirection clearly stands out, given the precedents of Einstein, Joule, Coulomb, Hertz and Curie. The only precedent I see in favor of this is Gauss, which is something I'm not crazy about, but even then Gauss is almost uniformly known mononymically (as is Einstein) because there are so many things that that bear his last name in his specific field that there's a whole article about it.

Still, despite my misgivings about even keeping Nikola Tesla in the ring, I think that question can be mooted (at least on this article), if a click-through analysis shows that there isn't even a clear primary topic for the term Tesla specifically, so my suggestion is to have Tesla redirect to the disambiguation page, rather than to Nikola Tesla. If possible, we should observe click-through rates for each of the articles and determine if there's a clear primary topic. If there is one and it is not Nikola Tesla, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a hatnote that redirects to Nikola Tesla's page. If we find that Nikola Tesla is, on the longer term, consistently getting most of the click-throughs, I'm open to having my mind changed about its suitability as a redirect.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla has more than 10 times as many page views at Tesla (unit) and Tesla Motors has roughly half the traffic of Nikola Tesla. That seems to make a pretty good case for a primary topic. Keep in mind that Nikola Tesla is also widely referred to as "Tesla", and that the car company and unit were named after him. I think the original analysis and arguments in the previous discussion were pretty compelling.- MrX 21:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If Albert Brooks suddenly got 10x as many page views (long term) as Albert Einstein, even though Albert Brooks' given name is "Albert Einstein", I wouldn't suggest a redirect, because he's clearly not what people are looking for when they search for "Tesla". The above analysis of click-throughs, performed when Tesla was a redirect to Tesla (disambiguation) indicates that people were nearly evenly split in looking for either Tesla (unit), Nikola Tesla and Tesla Motors. That indicates to me that the search term "Tesla" by itself does not have a primary topic. The primary topic for a given term is not just the article with the most page views among all of those for which it is a plausible search term, it's more about what people are looking for when they are searching for that specific term. I think the click-through analysis indicates that there is no primary topic.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Please fix incoming links as quickly as possible. bd2412 T 18:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tesla (disambiguation) → Tesla – The 2012 primarytopic grab on Tesla is clearly no longer viable, with Nikola Tesla getting less than half the traffic and several of the other uses being very important (esp. the unit and the various car-related articles). Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe the current construct is no longer viable? What has changed since 2012? I'm not clear on what you mean by Nikola Tesla getting "half the traffic". Half of what?. - MrX 05:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean that in 2012 that page view stats showed Nikola Tesla getting more hits than all the others; that is, more than half the traffic. This is no longer true, with the increased traffic to the various car articles. Even in 2012 there was no clear consensus for the primarytopic claim (see the sections above), so now there should be even less, as the section immediately above shows. Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide some stats to support that claim? I'm open to changing my view if in fact there is another article receiving more page views than Nikola Tesla, or if several of them are receiving roughly the same number of views.- MrX 19:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Per stats at [1] etc. it's closer to 50% than I realized:

Nikola Tesla has been viewed 319757 times in the last 30 days. (about 12000 of that traffic is via Tesla, e.g. from articles such as International Engine of the Year and Lenox Square and Car dealership and Medical University of Vienna that link Tesla incorrectly, providing more evidence of the damage that a primarytopic assumption does.)

Tesla (unit) has been viewed 30941 times in the last 30 days.

Tesla Motors has been viewed 112437 times in the last 30 days. (was previously 1/7 of Nikola Tesla; now is over 1/3)

Tesla Model S has been viewed 52021 times in the last 30 days. (was previously nothing, now is 1/6 of Nikola Tesla)

Tesla Model X has been viewed 13024 times in the last 30 days. (was previously nothing)

Tesla Roadster has been viewed 22174 times in the last 30 days.

Tesla Factory has been viewed 8705 times in the last 30 days.

Tesla coil has been viewed 28806 times in the last 30 days.

Tesla (band) has been viewed 11146 times in the last 30 days.

Tesla Effect: A Tex Murphy Adventure has been viewed 6720 times in the last 30 days.

... and more. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me make sure I'm interpreting this correctly. Most (319757 minus 12000) of the hits to Nikola Tesla result from people typing Nikola Tesla in the search box, from clicking Nikola Tesla in other articles, or from external links. Is that correct? If so, then I have no objection to moving Tesla (disambiguation) to Tesla.- MrX 23:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support the unit would also be a highly encyclopedic topic vying for primarity. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• All of the disambiguated articles are encyclopedic, several are highly-encyclopedic, but they all derived their name from the man, Nikola Tesla. - MrX 13:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just having a unit named after the person does not mean people wanting the unit will want to read about the person it's named after, since they will likely be wanting information about the unit. Do you want to read about Ampere when you want to read about Amps? Most people probably wouldn't. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support, Its an extremely rational move but the main topics are related and this is my only reason for not stating full support. Things work either way. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Clear. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom, for just a surname i can see, but too much stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.80.54 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Every single entry in both Nikola Tesla (disambiguation) and Tesla (disambiguation) refer to a concept, place or thing named after Nikola Tesla. I'll stipulate to everything Dicklyon says above. However, quoting WP:PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance (my emphasis), if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." I'm a bit concerned about User:Dicklyon's charcterizing the previous discussion consensus as a "primarytopic grab". That label, perhaps unintentionally, seems to attribute a motive, when clearly the subject was discussed and disagreeing views of many editors were considered. Per WP:RECENTISM I'm likewise concerned about using monthly views as the preferred method of deciding primary topic, when WP:PTOPIC cautions specifically against using these sorts of techniques overmuch to determine outcomes. This could mean that eventually, based on monthly views, Tesla Motors could be established as the primary topic. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• As I see it, this move would not establish a different primary topic; it would simply establish that there isn't one. "Tesla" is now the primary in that it redirects to Nikola Tesla. Under this change "Tesla" would be this d/a page instead. I don't see that that amounts to "establishing a primary topic." Nikky could still be the first entry on this page. Jeh (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I was taking the argument to its logical extreme. BusterD (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• "slippery slope" is widely regarded as a logical fallacy. Or to use your terms, an "extreme" is rarely a "logical" extrapolation. That aside, I think it is appropriate to argue for or against the proposal that is actually made, not a proposal that may or may not happen in the future. If this proposal is approved, and then sometime later someone suggests e.g. making Tesla redirect to Tesla (unit), you can bring this argument to bear then (and I'll support you). Jeh (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. There are just too many articles besides the article on the person. Jeh (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - people looking for the dude could just type in his whole name, people looking for the car company don't necessarily think about the fact that we'd disambiguate it. See Ford Red Slash 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Nikola Tesla isn't the clear primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 04:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. If you look up "tesla" on Britannica, you get the unit, Nikola, and Tesla Motors. So I would consider those to be the encyclopedic options. A Google ranking suggests that Tesla Motors is most the likely desired destination of the three. Update. After reading the comments by 0x0077BE above, I must concur. Primary topic should be between the topics actually named "Tesla," i.e. the car and the unit. No one would expect an article on the scientist to be titled simply Tesla. Confabulationist (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Snow close anyway, but for the record before closing, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support Per all my arguments in the above section. I've seen no evidence that Nikola Tesla is the primary article people are looking for when searching for "Tesla", even if Nikola Tesla is the most popular article and "Tesla" is a probably search term, that does not mean that it is the primary topic for that search term. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 16:11, 10 December 2014 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tesla (band)

Per this edit, WP:DPT is not determined by sold albums. It is determined by that. Obviously Tesla (band) is not even in the running, just another "Media and entertainment". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the first line of Wikipedia:DETERMINEPRIMARY is "There are no absolute rules for determining whether a primary topic exists and what it is; decisions are made by discussion among editors, often as a result of a requested move." Referring to recent pageviews is a quick, yes, but insufficient method. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#No_primary_topic there is no single primary topic since "tesla" refers to many things of interest to a multitude of readers across a variety of topics - hence the unusually long disambiguation list. Thirdly, my point about album sales was that the band named Tesla is of long-term significance, which is one of two given criteria for a primary topic (per Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic?). Since Tesla (band) fits the criteria for a primary topic and there's already multiple primary topics, I added it to the list. QRep2020 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Looking at page views with a wider scope here (both in terms of time and pages considered), it's pretty obvious that the two topics currently at the top are head and shoulders above everything else, so that seems like a pretty logical place to make the cut-off for this DAB. Including the band would mean extending the common terms section to at least 5 entries, which feels like too much for this actually very average length page, and would also make for way less clear of a cut-off. That said, the placement of the band at the bottom of the media section is obviously wrong and I'll fix that. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)