This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
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.
If someone gets a chance, this really should be at alligator clip, not crocodile clip. A crocodile clip is specifically a type of alligator clip that has the same width over the whole length, and doesn't taper towards a point. I'll get around to it sometime if no one else does.--Sturmde (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
The result of the move request was: declined, no consensusRifleman 82 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment In my experience of British English I know what a crocodile clip is, but I have never heard of an alligator clip. Perhaps the nominator could provide evidence that the latter is the more common term. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2010 (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.
I've added a section on specifications with some referenced to US DoD standards for alligator / crocodile clips. It's US-centric, so please feel free to add other national and international standards. Bosef1 (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
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: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Crocodile clip → Alligator clip – The current name is a specific subtype, not the generic. There is no question as to the frequency of the terms -- alligator is massively more common. – tooki (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Until today, I've never heard of crocodile clips, and I've been an electronics professional for 40+ years. "Alligator clip" is used universally in USA in both military and civilian applications, and it is far and away the predominant usage if the metric is search engine hits. That said, I cannot attest to naming conventions used elsewhere, and since I've never heard of crocodile clips, I can't say whether they differ from alligator clips. Lambtron (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:RETAIN. This page was created as Crocodile clip and has always been at that title, we don't change from one variety of English to another. Zarcadia (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that alligator and crocodile clips are the same thing, and that the issue here is solely a matter of English variety. That may be true, but I would be reluctant to accept that premise without supporting RS, especially since others have previously suggested that alligator and crocodile clips are two different things. Also, please note that WP:RETAIN does not prohibit changing a title to a different language variety, nor is the title's lifetime relevant when deciding if such a change is warranted. Lambtron (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment If you attempted to buy alligator clips in an electronics store in the UK, you would draw a complete blank. In the Queen's English, they are referred to as crocodile clips. That said, Wikipedia policy does not favour one country or language variant over another, rather it's a case of who got there first, and in this case the crocodile won. Philg88 ♦talk 17:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, "crocodile clips" would be met with blank stares in the US. I would agree with you, and rescind my support for this move, if reliable sources are found that support the hypothesis that alligator and crocodile clips are exact equivalents. Lambtron (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per ENGVAR and RETAIN, unless someone can convince me that "alligator clip" is a distinct thing in British English. I have always heard them called "crocodile clips". SpinningSpark 22:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment. "Alligator clip" was the name given to this device when it was invented in 1908. The company that invented it (Mueller) still makes it, and they still call it "alligator clip". They also make "crocodile clips", which obviously are not the same thing as "alligator clips" (to see this for yourself, have a look at the mechanical specs for crocodile clip and alligator clip). There is plenty of evidence that these definitions are not exclusive to Mueller. For example, search for alligator and crocodile clips -- from any manufacturer -- at Digikey and you will see two completely different devices, which are both consistent with Mueller's definitions. I can't say whether these facts are grounds for a move, but at the very least they should be mentioned in the article. Lambtron (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Support per Lambtron's sound analysis. MOS:RETAIN could not be a justification in itself for keeping a wrong/inaccurate title. Cavarrone 04:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: per WP:RETAIN. Whether this proposal is rejected or passed once it is over (but only once it is over) then the text of the article should be changed to consistently read either crocodile or alligator, as currently it is a jumble of the two. Ebonelm (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is a jumble -- of different mechanical devices. And not just two: a "spring clip" is yet another, completely different mechanism that looks nothing like crocodile teeth. This sort of problem cannot be solved through forced consistency, or by locking down the title because it was "first". I can think of two practical solutions: (1) Move to Electric test clip and keep crocodiles and alligators (and others) together; or (2) Split into Alligator clip and Crocodile clip. In either case, the history of alligator clips should be included somewhere, the mechanical differences between alligator and crocodile clips should be clear, and it should be mentioned that in some locales there is no naming distinction between these two types. Ideally it would also explain how this loss of naming distinction occurred, and how one would designate a particular mechanism when specifying a clip. Lambtron (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
support They are alligator clips. Calling a crocodile clip an alligator clip is like calling a crocodile and alligator; they look similar, and if you're from an area that doesn't know the difference between words you might not get it right, but they still aren't the same darn thing. ~~ipuser188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Whatever the technical reality may be, these things are generally called crocodile clips. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Well that's the rub, isn't it? In the US alligator clips are not generally called crocodile clips. This is due in part to the "technical reality" -- they are two completely different devices -- and in part because manufacturers and US users have called them alligator clips since they were invented more than 100 years ago. The regional "name blending" of these two devices is certainly worthy of mention, but WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant unless it can be shown that "crocodile clip" is the name most commonly used for alligator clips. Lambtron (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, since the article was created under the name that is invariably used in the UK, under WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN that's how it should stay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. As I see it, the crux of the problem is that this article is attempting to cover two topics with one title -- a title which is invalid for one of those topics in the US. WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN are not intended to address this situation and cannot be relied on to fix this problem. IMO this could be resolved in a couple of practical ways: (1) move the article to a name that is common everywhere (not just in the UK) such as electric test clip; or (2) split it into alligator clip and crocodile clip. Either way, I have no problem with RETAINing the article's current English language flavor; my only agenda here is to fix the problematic title. Lambtron (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Administrator's comment. I've reverted the non-admin closure and move by Kwamikagami, who moved the article to a title that was never brought up in the discussion. If anyone wants to discuss and seek consensus for the option he proposed, "Electrical clip", please feel free.--Cúchullaint/c 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Response: Lambtron suggested "electric test clip", but the jumper cables in the article are not test clips. The manufacturer at the site posted above uses "electrical clip" for alligator and several similar clips. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment: "Electrical clip" would be a practical title as it's both technically correct and valid throughout the English speaking world (AFAIK). I wouldn't be surprised to land there (as I was with "crocodile clip") when seeking alligator clip. Lambtron (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It ridiculous to try and invoke WP:SURPRISE: the article has a clear and informative picture at the top which would allow any viewer to realise that 'crocodile clip' was an another name for alligator clips, moreover the introduction lists alternative names to avoid any confusion. Crocodiles and alligator are different animals but are noted for their similar appearance, I can't believe that it would be that surprising for anyone to discover that what they think looks like an alligator looks like a crocodile to someone else. Furthermore, the same argument could be used against the proposed move to 'alligator clip' as then it would be possible for anyone who comes from a country where ‘crocodile clip’ is used to claim that they were surprised and demand a change back. It would have been astonishing to have been redirected to the article Berlin or for that matter to the article crocodile but being redirected to crocodile clip certainly does not meet the criteria of WP:SURPRISE.
Moving on to the proposed alternatives: 'Electrical clip' or 'electric test clip', neither of these would be appropriate names because they don't refer exclusively to crocodile/alligator clips but a larger range of clips which can be used to conduct an electrical current, this clip for example is referred to as a 'battery clip' but does not have the 'jaws' of the crocodile/alligator clip and therefore would constitute a 'rival' claimant to the term 'electric clip'. In addition we should avoid using the word 'test' as these clips aren't always used for tests. Ebonelm (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I can see how WP:SURPRISE might seem "ridiculous" from a purely UK perspective, but it makes perfect sense when viewed from the other side of the pond. I assumed there was a mistake when I landed here while seeking "alligator clip": I saw a photo of an alligator clip next to the title "crocodile clip", which I know to be a completely different thing. The article attempts to gloss over this discrepancy by suggesting "crocodile clip" is synonmyous with "alligator clip" -- a patently false claim in the US. BTW, I'm not the first to be surprised by this, as evidenced by some of the earlier threads on this page. I don't claim to know the ideal solution, but I would have to say that almost any previously suggested alternative would be an improvement. As I've said before, there are two obvious, practical ways to fix this: agree upon a common name for both devices or split the devices into different articles. My preference is to find a common name, but splitting may be the better solution because (1) it may not be possible to reach consensus on a common name, and (2) we can easily avoid surprises with individual articles. Lambtron (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Another solution would be to have the lead say something like "Crocodile and alligator clips are ...<blah blah blah>" then have separate sections in the article to describe each. Alligator clip can then be redirected to the specific section. Two separate articles is not such a good idea: as is becoming abundantly clear in this discussion, many people do not differentiate between the terms (even amongst those "skilled in the art") and are likely to search for the "wrong" thing. SpinningSpark 08:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree that moving to Crocodile and alligator clips would solve the title problem. On the other hand, I don't see why splitting would create other problems. Suppose for a moment that the article is split, and that both articles feature an image consistent with manufacturers' definitions. Crocodile clip would also include an alligator clip image and explanation of regional naming. Alligator clip would explain regional naming, but would otherwise be entirely focused on alligator clips. I believe that this solution would not result in people searching for the "wrong" thing: UK visitors will only search for "crocodile clip" and see both types of clips, as expected; US visitors will search for "alligator clip" or "crocodile clip" and land exactly where they should. Lambtron (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2015 (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.