Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:13, 8 February 2011

This page was proposed for deletion by HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) on 29 May 2010. It was contested by Oonissie (talk · contribs) on 3 June 2010

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

Explosives Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Contact fuze has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Contact fuse → Contact fuze —Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy close; no reason given for move. Powers 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

reason was given, but removed in this edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, happy with speedy close. No reason given for move, and so no reason given for while we should ignore WP:ENGVAR. This article was started in British English and so should stay that way per that guideline. Dpmuk (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Fuse is an electrical device. Ordnance devices, of any language, are fuze. British vs. American has nothing to do with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's funny because the OED seems to disagree (I'm certain a bomb is an "ordance device") as does Sandia National Laboratories (taken from the external link). Also care to point out these long discussion on the topic (mentioned in your edit summary) as they would likely influence this discussion - the ones I find seem to show disagreement at best. I've reverted you for now as regardless of anything else spelling in the article should be consistent with the title. If this RM is successful I won't oppose changing it back. Dpmuk (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, and my edit was in no way vandalism, nor was it a competence issue. I'd ask that in future you assume good faith and be more polite with your edit summaries. Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
      • So what was your second edit, your revert, to introduce an incorrect spelling throughout the article? Also try talk:fuze and similar articles for a procession of the equally clueless arguing in favour of fuse. If you disagree with a rename that's one thing, but repeating the error throughout the article just to make it "consistent" is farcical. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
        • You really need to go and read WP:vandalism. That really was not vandalism. Not that I'm going to edit war over it now. Also, it's only your opinion, it's an error. I think you're making an error in reverting against guidelines so I could use the same argument about your reversion. Also I had gone and read Talk:Fuse. What I see there is a lot of personal opinions and some evidence for both sides - there certainly isn't a consensus either way. I'm also interested on your view of the SNL page - this directly contradicts your comment below that "no-one has ever turned up any printed military reference"? Additionally what the military call it is only part of the question, we work on WP:COMMONNAME here and both Google news (82 fuse; 12 fuze) and Google scholar (nearly or possibly all patents (292 fuse; 137 fuze) show that both versions get used a lot. As that is the case we are back to WP:ENGVAR so it should stay where it is. Dpmuk (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
        • And you also seem to be ignoring the fact that the only online reference uses "fuse". Dpmuk (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
          • You changed cited text (just one example) to read "<code>An example is the British ] ''Fuse, Percussion, D.A., No. 233''<ref name="Fletcher, Churchill Tank, Fuze 233" >Fuze D.A. No. 233], pp. 87-88</ref> </code>". You've heard of references I take it, and why we follow them, we don't reword them to follow our own POV. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose No reason given by nom. "Fuse" is acceptable spelling per wp:engvar. victor falk 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Try "Fuse is an electrical device. Ordnance devices, of any language, are fuze. British vs. American has nothing to do with it." above.

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true. See, for instance, the popular idiom "short fuse". Powers 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A fuse still isn't a piece of ordnance though. It may archaically be a loose powder train (as you describe for "short fuse"), but it's never an impact fuze, as described here. Read the talk pages. This has been beaten to death for years. Someone is quoting the cut-down free-web OED, in contradiction to the large chunk of the full OED posted at talk:fuze. No-one has ever turned up any printed military reference, in particular none since the Crimea and the concept of a "fuze" as a separate component, which has shown any use of this supposed "fuse". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My trusty 1964 OED: " fuse (-z), n. &v.t. 1.' Tube, casting, cord, etc., filled or saturated with combustible matter for igniting bomb, blasting-charge, etc.; component screwed into shell, mine, etc. designed to detonate explosive charge after an interval (time-~) or on impact or when subjected to magnetic or vibratory stimulation. 2. v.t. Fit ~ to. "

Previous entry: "fuse" is "... 1.' Melt (t. & i. with intense heat; blend; amalgamate, 2. n. ".

No entry for "fuze". See also OE etymology online: victor falk 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The OED is the Oxford English Dictionary. There's isn't a 1964 edition of the full OED, although there is no doubt such an edition for the concise versions, which are a far shorter text. The Online Etymological Dictionary you cite is just a website. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class military history articles
• Stub-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Stub-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• Stub-Class Explosives articles
• Mid-importance Explosives articles
• Requested moves