Transwiki talk:Rate of penetration

Transwiki:Rate of penetration
You mean the rate + of + penetration? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the "Transwiki:" namespace anyway? --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When people from other wikis think a page should be here and not in their wiki, it gets moved to our Tranwiki namespace. That’s the theory, in practice it often acts as WP’s rubbish bin. — Ungoliant (Falai) 07:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, sum of parts. —Angr 09:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mighty quick to delete a technical term that would probably meet a test for idiomaticity, ie, commonly abbreviated (ROP, RoP);, restriction on what "penetration" means in the expression (ie, not the rate at which lubrication penetrates drilling machinery bearings). This is why our coverage of industrial vocabulary sucks. DCDuring TALK 12:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are rotations per minute or parts per million idiomatic because they are commonly expressed in the sciences as rpm: and ppm:? I don't think so. Moreover, the page itself noted that it could really be penetration of anything by anything, including in the sexual sense. I think our coverage of industrial vocabulary sucks because most of it is SOP or unattestable slang. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 12:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The sexual sense was added to the WP article by a vandal; I've removed it there. BTW, rpm is revolutions per minute, not rotations per minute. There are countries in Latin America and the Middle East whose political situation could probably be measured in rpm. —Angr 13:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Metaknowledge: Have you looked at WT:IDIOM? Or at Pawley's criteria for idiomaticity (summary at User:DCDuring/Pawley?
 * I'm merely suggesting that deletion is always possible, [but] put input from someone who might be knowledgeable about something industrial should be treasured because of its scarcity, both at WP and here, but especially here. We can let our own personal prejudices get the better of us very easily and lapse into a new - and selective - prescriptivism. In my experience we lovingly tease out every possible nuance and justification for inclusion of linguistic folderal, computing jargon, internet slang, and leetspeak, but get very exclusionist when it comes to some unfamiliar or unpopular industry. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, straightforwardly. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Metaknowledge: re: "it could really be penetration of anything by anything", a rocking chair could be any chair that is rocking. Re: "our coverage of industrial vocabulary sucks because most of it is SOP or unattestable slang": If that is your opinion of industrial vocabulary, you should disqualify yourself from making decisions about such entries that require objectivity or neutrality. Re: revolutions per minute, see and re: parts per million, see . (We don't have the terms, but other lemmings do. I rest your case.) DCDuring TALK  17:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Angr: I was trying to think of something more industrial than the terms I regularly use, but obviously I just displayed my own ignorance :)
 * @DCD: Can you find a citation of "rocking chair" that means something else? I'll bet you that in less than five minutes I can find tons of durable citations that use "rate of penetration" to mean various unrelated things. As for industrial vocab, I look at the hard sciences, where everybody publishes papers and otherwise render rare terms citeable, and yet I can still hear slangy terms that are wholly unciteable. I can only imagine that it happens even more in the industrial world. Finally, the lemmings have different criteria than we do. I remain unsure whether we should leap headlong into the sea with them. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)