Talk:Wetting current

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Wetting current 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.

Whetting current → Wetting current – I propose to move the article "Whetting current" over the existing redirect "Wetting current", which reflects the much more common spelling of the term. "Whetting current" itself should become a redirect to "Wetting current" to catch the alternative spelling. We should not redirect to the switch article (as we did before) because switches are only one of several applications for wetting currents, and we cannot reasonably discuss the others in the switches article. Instead, the switch article should refer to "Wetting current" as the new main article on the subject. The redirect from "Sealing current" should go to "Wetting current" as well. Sealing current is a term used throughout the telecommunication industry. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle either solution so not an objection to the move request, but should not an encyclopaedia show the correct spelling even if not the common spelling in the USA? I assume wiktionary:whetting comes from the English word wiktionary:whet.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do the sources say? Google Books gives me one dubious looking hit on "whetting current" in context of electrical current through contacts, and a couple hundred hits on "wetting current" - surely some Tata-McGraw Hill book would use the extra H if it was at all common. Another book on British cars here [1], which talks about the "colours" of wires, also refers to "wetting" current. IEEE Std. 100 is no help as it defines neither "wetting current" nor "whetting current". --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen both, "wetting current" and "whetting current", but the former is by far more common, that's why I propose the move. If we can find a reliable source discussing the origin of the term, we should use whatever it reflects. However, so far I haven't found a source discussing the origin of the term at all, and both, to wet and to whet (don't) make sense to a degree. Given that this is an old term, it's even possible, that both were/are correct. Let's find out and adopt accordingly *afterwards*. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see the spelling "whetting current"; Google Books finds one hit. Let's just put the content into the correct spelling. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only admins can delete articles to make room for the move, and since "Wetting current" already exists as a redirect, we could do so only by copying over the contents (which would be wrong procedure). Proper procedure is to move the article over to the new location including its edit history.

Irony has it that I would have started this as a technical move, but didn't because I learnt from the edit history, that you had previously redirected to the switch article, so this was no longer uncontroversial... I would not mind to reduce this move request to a technical move over "Wetting current", but I will leave the decision to others. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename to "wetting current" per WP:COMMONNAME. For sources, I would suggest pre-1980s telephony references. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename ( "move", whatever) to wetting current as the most common spelling. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on WP:ENGVAR requires that the article should retain the spelling from the variant of English that the article was originally written in. The spelling 'whetting' is the British English spelling of the term. WP:ENGVAR does also go on to state that the spelling should not be changed without a clear concensus to do so (or the logical dual: that the spelling can be changed if there is a broad concensus). In general terms, the original English variant should be retained unless there is a very good reason for it to be changed. That the American English speakers spell the word a different way is not an adequate reason (that's why the policy exists). The spellings throughout the article should be restored to match the title. There is nothong wrong, of course, with a redirect from 'Wetting current'. I B Wright (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit. I've also been a telephone engineer, where "wetting current" was an everyday term. I also work as a woodworker with manual tools, thus lots of hand sharpening. I even polish Japanese swords (which is substantially more skilled than it sounds). I have substantial experience and reference library on abrasives, sharpening and "whetting". My even larger library on electrical engineering from the 19th century (UK & US) onwards doesn't confuse the two. The OED (by which I mean the real four foot of shelf space version) clearly distinguishes them. I have never before heard the "whetting" spelling applied to the electrical context.

This is no ENGVAR, it's a typo. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im also a Brit! I have regularly come across both spellings, but I had always assumed that 'whetting' was English and that 'wetting' was a product of creeping Americanism. My (1970 odd) edition of Collins Technical Dictionary lists 'Whetting' and notes, "... also spelt wetting (US)". Under 'Wetting' it simply says "see Whetting". A very old (pre world war II) text book that I inherited from my father, has the spelling 'whetting' throughout. So it would seem to be an ENGVAR matter. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to cite title and page number before I'd believe you're not just disagreeing with Wtshymanski for the sake of disagreeing with Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also have an established track record of dislike of Wtshymanski's editing style. However, in this case, I cannot do anything other than take the pragmatic approach. I am aware of the historical spelling of 'whetting current' (I am over 60!). However, modern (as in this century) reference works use the spelling 'wetting current'. If there is 'creeping Americanism', then in this case, it seems to have resolutely crept. As such, I believe that this is one case where there should be a "broad consencus" that the spelling that appears to now be in use on both sides of the pond should be used. Of course: there is no problem with Whetting current being a redirect to Wetting current for those who remember the correct English spelling and may search for it. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neither Brit nor American, but even if it would turn out that both spelling variants are (or were) valid at some time in history, I'm not sure if WP:ENGVAR would apply here, given that whetting current was created just a couple of days ago on 2012-10-25T17:31:24, whereas wetting current exists since 2006-09-25T15:58:20‎, but was turned into a redirect to the switch article by Wtshymanski on 2012-04-24T16:26:08‎, whereas whetting current was turned into the same redirect not before 2012-11-01T15:30:47‎ by Wtshymanski as well. This and the fact, that the text at whetting current was about twice as long it once was under wetting current are the only reasons why I reverted his redirect and started to add to whetting current rather than wetting current, knowing that wetting current is the far more common spelling variant at least today. I do think that WP:COMMONNAME supports my move request. Nevertheless I am interested into the history of the term, as this is certainly something that could be added to the article as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history is quite simple. There is a language called English that has evolved over history by a country called England (not without considerable support from Wales, Scotland and Ireland). There is also a shit hole of a country called the United States of America that is full of lazy people who cannot be arsed to learn any spelling that is in any way different from that in which a word is pronounced (or indeed any grammatical rules that require any brain work (or indeed anything that requires thinking - hence the absence of roundabouts on American roads)). I made the mistake of visiting the country once and have no intention of repeating the experience. We in Britain have to suffer with out television programmes having to be made with dialogue in American because the Americans will not allow any programme to be imported with English dialogue. Unfortunately, I cannot lay the blame for any of this at Wtshymanski's door because he is not an American. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"hence the absence of roundabouts on American roads"

Roundabouts are an American invention. The rest of your diatribe is about as accurate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really. Then isn't it strange that on the one ocassion that I visited America and drove some quite large distances, that I never encountered a singe roundabout. The rest of my description of Americans is one hundred percent accurate. Even in the last hotel I stayed in, I was always aghast at the Americans who always took the lift (having waited several minutes for it) rather than walk up just three steps into the car park. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This move proposal is a violation of the WP:ENGVAR rule. Moving articles just to change the variety of English is forbidden unless strong national ties can be demonstrated, which is not the case here. Roger (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not a national language variation - no-one spells it "whetting current", not even the Tata-McGraw Hill books. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, America doesn't spell it 'whetting'. 'Whetting' is the correct British English spelling of the word regardless of what you may like to believe. Wikipedia policy states that it cannot be changed as things stand. Unfortunately, it is true that the majority of British engineers seem to have succumbed to the American spelling, but the rules under WP:ENGVAR don't seem to cover that point other than to permit the change only if there is a broad consencus, which there isn't at present. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

It would be impossible to merge the articles as there is no article at the target to merge with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I B Wright (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]