Talk:Foucault's gyroscope

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title

Cagliost please open an WP:RM if you wish to change the title. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article title "Foucault gyroscope" is Original Research, implies it was a special kind of gyroscope, which it wasn't. "Foucault's gyroscope" would be better, like "Foucault's pendulum", and satisfy the desire for concision. cagliost (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cagliost: That is for discussion at WP:RM not WP:AFD. Please review the additional sources I have been adding. This is a collaborative volunteer project - you should have looked for sources, or at least entered discussion, before opening a deletion discussion. The AFD is going to waste people’s time. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the deletion request after additional secondary sources added.

Would you object to "Foucault's gyroscope"? If not, I will request a technical move. "Foucault gyroscope" implies it is a special type of gyroscope, which it is not. "Foucault's gyroscope" implies no such thing, matches "Foucault's pendulum" nicely, satisfies your desire for concision, and is supported by sources Webster, Sommeria, Tobin, Instruments of Science, and Science Museum. cagliost (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would be fine with that. Many thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article on the pendulum is at Foucault pendulum, not "Foucault's pendulum". If I understand correctly, a "Foucault gyroscope" includes not only the gyroscope itself but also the related mechanism for demonstrating the rotation of the Earth, so it seems like it is a distinct type of instrument, and others have reproduced it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 March 2023

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

The result of the move request was: Rough consensus to move. It appears the proposed name is supported by sources over a greater period. (non-admin closure) – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foucault gyroscope → Foucault's gyroscope – Correct name, supported by sources as discussed on Talk:Foucault gyroscope cagliost (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 02:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 21:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 17:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom :3 F4U (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for consistency, formality and stability. The nominator says "supported by sources", but without showing evidence. Ngram evidence shows neither version dominating. As I previously commented above, the article on the pendulum is at Foucault pendulum, not "Foucault's pendulum", so titling consistency would argue against the possessive version, and the possessive version seems less formal. If I understand correctly, a "Foucault gyroscope" includes not only the gyroscope itself but also the related mechanism for demonstrating the rotation of the Earth, so it seems like it is a distinct type of instrument rather than a single particular instrument, and others have reproduced it. According to the article, it "became a widely popular instrument". Reference [1] of the article is quoted as using "Foucault gyroscope". My impression is that the article is both about the particular gyroscopes that Foucault produced himself (and I understand he produced more than one of them) and also about the type of gyroscope that he originated. I see no compelling reason to change the article name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nominator says 'supported by sources', but without showing evidence." This is false. I said "supported by sources Webster, Sommeria, Tobin, Instruments of Science, and Science Museum". The only sources on the article which don't support it are the Dyer source, and the one in French which supports neither side. cagliost (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for that list, which I had not previously noticed. Some of those sources are talking about an actual specific instrument that he owned (e.g., as a historical artefact for a museum exhibit), in which case the possessive form may be more appropriate. However, my impression is that this article also discusses similar instruments that were made by other people that were not owned by Foucault, as with the Wikipedia article about the pendulum. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- "includes not only the gyroscope itself but also the related mechanism for demonstrating the rotation of the Earth, so it seems like it is a distinct type of instrument". I do not see any evidence for this in any of the sources, could you provide a quotation? The apparent rotation of the gyroscope is what demonstrates the rotation of the earth. cagliost (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other gyroscopes had been (and continue to be) produced for other purposes that are not really usable for demonstrating the rotation of the earth. A Foucault pendulum might also be considered just an ordinary pendulum, but aspects such as its large size and ability to swing freely rather than just back and forth within one plane of action like the pendulum of a clock and the duration of the experiments conducted with it and the tracking of its path tend to make a Foucault pendulum distinctive as a type. If one builds a new such pendulum in a modern building as a physics demonstration, it should probably called a "Foucault pendulum" rather than "Foucault's pendulum", because it would not be the pendulum that Foucault made or owned. Consider the following somewhat-confusing sentence in Instruments of Science: "Likewise, attempts to electrify Foucault's gyroscope, conducted by the French navy, were not continued." I doubt these were attempts to electrify a gyroscope that had actually been owned by Foucault; rather, they are talking about trying to electrify that type of gyroscope, and thus implying that it was a distinctive type of gyroscope. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unlike the distinctive aspects of a Foucault pendulum, I am not seeing anything distinctive about a "Foucault gyroscope". How about "Foucault's gyroscope experiment" as a title? cagliost (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - At this point I prefer not to comment further. I've said what I have to say and I'd like to hear what others think. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- BarrelProof provides a link to Google Ngrams, but only from year 1969. If we extend the range to 1800, the difference is clear. Ngram evidence cagliost (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think we should pay too much attention to what people were calling this a couple of hundred years ago. The most recent 50 years should suffice. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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