Talk:Penetrating item
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penetrating item redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Title[edit]
- There are to date a bot and two editors involved in considering this, but this page is the appropriate site for that. If a third editor so requests (or comments here on the same matter) i'd be glad to copy or summarize the previous discussion here.--Jerzy•t 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I made the change from Penetrant (mechanical, electrical or structural) to Penetrating item bcz of the extravagant suffix (Such a suffix should be the shortest that suffices to do the task of disambiguating the term, and generally the Dab'g sfx should, IIRC, be a noun or noun phrase that names a synonym or a context.) and bcz the article's text suggests equal status for the ambiguous and the alternate term. User:Ahering@cogeco.ca, presumably relying on experience in a relevant Canadian industry, has since objected to "Penetrating item".
IMO, "Penetrant (construction)" would be preferable if "Penetrating item" turns out to be actively deprecated by a marked majority of English-speaking practitioners, but otherwise the parenthesis-free term should be retained, to support use of unpiped links.
--Jerzy•t 22:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)