Talk:Electric machine

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering 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.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

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

Do away with this article[edit]

Electric machine article should be eliminated, there not being much in the article worth salvaging to merge with existing electric motor article, which should further be re-named 'Electric machine (rotating)'.Cblambert (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's a pretty standard topic of course in electrical engineering. Everybody in the "power" stream takes "machines". Mayb the other articles need to be refactord to put more general common theory here, and concentrate on their motor-ness or generator-ness instead? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no concensus here to support any merge. Why does one editor insist on merging these articles? Not only that but he merges the articles incorrectly. There is a procedure at WP:M on how to merge articles. 212.183.128.1 (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link WP:M used to link to merging but no longer does so. The link to how to merge articles is WP:MERGE. 85.255.234.152 (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's always wrong to have two articles covering the same topic with different titles. That would make one a [{WP:FORK]], which needlessly complicates the already baroque problems of maintaining the "encyclopedia". Did you look at the other talk page before needlessly reverting yet again? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you are the one who opposed the merge above. There is thus no consensus for a merge. Tags are over a year old and thus historical. I did not look at the other article discussion because 1. It became invisible as soon as you merged the articles and 2. If you were aware of the correct merge procedure,, you would be aware that all discussion takes place on the target article's talk page. 85.255.234.146 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to keep two articles? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean other than the reason that you gave above? Once again you have not carried out the merge properly, so I am fully justified in reverting it yet again. As I have already pointed out to you: if your merge was allowed to remain, the edit history of the source article is lost. Merge it incorectly again, and it will become the subject of an ANI. If you believe that one article is a FORK of the other, then propose a merge on those grounds. If there is support, then a proper merge can be made. You alone do not get to decide if there is opposition. 85.255.235.227 (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no need for two articles. With three clicks you can get the edit history behind the redirect - this meets Wikipedia's requirement to maintain a link to edit history. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the confusion. What I was responding to was "Electric machine article should be eliminated". Merging two articles isn't eliminating either one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if you merged the articles according to procedure, the edit history can be obtained with just one click. Why make things more complicated (especially for inexperienced editors who unaware how to find the source edit history) just because you are too damned lazy to do the job properly. 212.183.128.63 (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's edit history and there's edit history. Talk page tags can be randomly deleted or archived by random bots. Talk pages may not be preserved in some presentations of Wikipedia content. A link in the edit history stays there (barring admin intervention), and if the required edit history link is available, the link to the merged article is also always available. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show examples where this has happened. If you can do this then propose a change in the merge procedure. Regardless of your opinion, Wikipedia has an established procedure for merging articles. You are obliged to follow it as the recent ANI has confirmed. If you are not prepared to follow the procedure, do not merge articles. Leave it to those who are more competent. 85.255.234.226 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge[edit]

Electric machine and Electrical machine are the same topic and ought to be merged. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course, and the IP who keeps undoing the merge is an arse. Yes, the merge should be done properly, but it is more important to have a rational set of articles. The edit history record can always be pointed to after the event with a dummy edit and/or talk page note. SpinningSpark 11:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I will try to do the merge shortly. ~Kvng (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~Kvng (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transformer[edit]

The Transformer section has to be removed: transformer is not an electric machine in the traditional sense of the term. Викидим (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead cites the Flanagan's book. However, the text of the book (available at [1], does not contain either "electric machine" or "electrical machine". It does contain the word "machine" - once applied to the transformer, but the term "machine" is way too generic to consider the transformer an "electric machine" simply because it is, well, electric, and is mentioned as an "efficient machine". To avoid confusion, many sources use a term "static electric machine" for the transformer, and/or lump transformer together with other coils, like current-limiting reactor (the latter choice is made by Flanagan who uses the term "static magnetic device"). We need a better source. Викидим (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"transformer is not classified as an electric machine" [2]
titles like "An Introduction to Electrical Machines and Transformers" are also quite persuasive.

Since a month had passed with no objections to my original post, I am going to (1) remove the section on transformers from the article and (2) change the wording in the lead to accommodate the sources that call transformer a "static machine" and the ones that state explicitly that it should not be called an "electric machine" at all. Викидим (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With no objections, executing the changes. Викидим (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration: [EMs] produce virtually all electric power on Earth[edit]

In 2023, PV should reach about 5% of electricity generated. Then again, most of it will pass at least one transformer… 188.109.124.100 (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The source I have used is not the nicest one (the publisher apparently has a blemished reputation), so feel free to provide a better quality scientific publication and remove my source. Викидим (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]