Talk:Pneumatic motor

Engineering Start‑class Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Start‑class

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Proposed merge with compressed-air engine and pneumatic actuator

This article as well as Pneumatic actuator - which is a technical page, and the compressed-air engine should all be merged.

Now that this page is no longer a stub, I think it is sufficient to stand on its own.

I do support the merge of pneumatic actuator into pneumatic motor, but I don't necessarily support the merge of compressed-air engine, as I see the engine article being about their use in vehicles. Although, currently, there is a lot of redundancy that needs to be resolved. Also, if the two articles are to stand on their own, the differences need to be well defined. Wizard191 (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked into the legitimacy of the pneumatic actuator article at all? The only comment on the page's discussion is that the page is "horribly flawed."

Randischieber (talk)