Talk:VRLA battery: Difference between revisions
added unsigned |
→Move: !nosign! format |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
{{movereq|VRLA electrochemical cell}} |
{{movereq|VRLA electrochemical cell}} |
||
⚫ | The electrochemical battery is simply a pair of electrochemical cells. this article deals around how this type of cell works. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:81.245.90.148|81.245.90.148]] ([[User talk:81.245.90.148|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.245.90.148|contribs]]) 12:03, 9 October 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
[[:VRLA battery]] → [[VRLA electrochemical cell]] — |
|||
⚫ | The electrochemical battery is simply a pair of electrochemical cells. this article deals around how this type of cell works. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:81.245.90.148|81.245.90.148]] ([[User talk:81.245.90.148|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.245.90.148|contribs]]) 12:03, 9 October 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
*'''Oppose'''. Do not rename, proposed name does not exist in actual use, current article name is clear, accurate and common. This is one of several dubious renames proposed by this anon editor. With so much real work to be done, we should not be spinning our wheels on renamings to arguably the wrong name of an article. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) |
*'''Oppose'''. Do not rename, proposed name does not exist in actual use, current article name is clear, accurate and common. This is one of several dubious renames proposed by this anon editor. With so much real work to be done, we should not be spinning our wheels on renamings to arguably the wrong name of an article. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski|talk]]) |
||
*'''Strong Oppose''' and suggest speedy close (is that possible?). This is not what the general public would be looking for. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk:HumphreyW|talk]]) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Strong Oppose''' and suggest speedy close (is that possible?). This is not what the general public would be looking for. [[User:HumphreyW|HumphreyW]] ([[User talk:HumphreyW|talk]]) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:07, 10 October 2009
![]() | Electronics Unassessed | |||||||||
|
![]() | Energy C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Chemistry C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Proposed Merge
It seems to me that Gel Battery, Absorbent glass mat and VRLA would fit much better into a "Types of Lead-Acid Batteries" subsection in the Lead-acid battery page. See the discussion over at Talk:Lead-acid battery. Matt B. 11:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not being an expert on Battery chemistry, nor topology - the following article seems to contradict a number of "facts" in this article? http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0101/Nelson-0101.html An experts attention sure seems to be required! Carl L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.169.142 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Move
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that VRLA battery be renamed and moved to VRLA electrochemical cell. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
VRLA battery → VRLA electrochemical cell — The electrochemical battery is simply a pair of electrochemical cells. this article deals around how this type of cell works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Do not rename, proposed name does not exist in actual use, current article name is clear, accurate and common. This is one of several dubious renames proposed by this anon editor. With so much real work to be done, we should not be spinning our wheels on renamings to arguably the wrong name of an article. --Wtshymanski (talk)
- Strong Oppose and suggest speedy close (is that possible?). This is not what the general public would be looking for. HumphreyW (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose along with all the other nominations made by the same IP address. These are all at the common name already and should stay there. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 17:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)