Talk:pince universelle

RFD discussion: September–December 2021
SOP. PUC – 19:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Imetsia (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I don’t think that workmen understand this and Italian pinza universale above as the sum of its parts. It would have to have certain properties to deserve the label. No way also combination pliers is SOP, or German Kombinationszange (opining like PUC that the being written together is of no bearing). If that is the French and Italian translation then we should keep them. I don’t understand that some terms for the same thing would be SOP and others not. Nor do I see that everything that the terms imply is contained by their parts, as said. If you really want to, you can always relate general epithets like “universal” and “combinatory” to everything. But the decomposition of the terms is not practical. And that is only synchronic. If we devise a history of pliers, which pliers are of this “universal” or “combination” type? There are no “out-of-the-ordinary, standard pliers”. These are instruments made with purposes in mind however general, and this generalization, not always achieved, is what makes them particular. Fay Freak (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 15:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * RFD-failed —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 15:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)