Jump to content

Talk:Contact fuze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Contact fuse)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Contact fuse → Contact fuze — Correct name for ordnance matters Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reason was given, but removed in this edit. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, but the correct template was substed to list this correctly and it does not take a paramater. Fixed now. In the future, try using the directions on the RM page. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
          • And you also seem to be ignoring the fact that the only online reference uses "fuse". Dpmuk (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You changed cited text (just one example) to read "An example is the British [[World War II]] ''Fuse, Percussion, D.A., No. 233''<ref name="Fletcher, Churchill Tank, Fuze 233" >Fuze D.A. No. 233[[#Fletcher, Churchill Tank, Ammunition 95mm Tank Howitzer|Fletcher, Churchill Tank]], pp. 87-88</ref> ". 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)[reply]
Yes, I have. Please assume good faith. As you will no doubt have noticed I changed none of the other references and was being very careful not to - obviously I caught one by mistake. I was actually referring to Reference 7, namely [1]. To date you seemed to have spent all your time commenting on other people's sources, comments and motives without so far coming up with a single source to support your assertion that only "fuze" is used in this context despite several counter-examples being pointed out to you. Dpmuk (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith? You blew that when your response to a request to fix an incorrect name was to rewrite the article to make the correct text match the incorrect text. Now you admit that you had to do this carefully, because you were already aware that the cited references disagreed with your change!
You claim that the utterly unimportant 1971 patent (so obviously unsafe it's no wonder it never gave rise to any real device) is authoritative? So are you now going to change ordnance to ordinance, because the patent mis-spells that too? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're assuming bad faith - it's your opinion that it's the incorrect name, I (and it appears others) disagree. Maybe I was a bit quick of the mark in changing it but I explained my reasoning which were, in my opinion, backed by policy. Why that should blow "good faith" is beyond me. I also used that example as how you seem to cherry pick and ignore what doesn't support your point of view - like in your replies here you've completely ignored the search results I give. It appears to me that you are unwilling to listen to, or respond properly to, any argument that goes against your point of view so I'm going to stop responding to you now as it seems pointless to me. I'm going to assume good faith and assume that wasn't your intent but that's the views you've managed to give me. Dpmuk (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 T 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • My trusty 1964 OED: " fuse2 (-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. [f. It. fuso f. L fusus spindle] "
Previous entry: "fuse1" (-z), v.t. & i., & n. 1.' Melt (t. & i. with intense heat; blend; amalgamate, [...blablabla...] 2. n. (electr.) Piece of easily-fusible wire, [....blablabla.]".
No entry for "fuze". See also OE etymology online: [2] walk victor falk talk 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes it is the Concise Oxford Dictionary, not the full. It shows that "fuse" is a "correct name for ordnance matters" (and preferred spelling) by the OED. walk victor falk talk 01:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that because you've found a concise dictionary that lists both, this over-rules both the full OED, and also the UK & US military references already on the article? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the Oxford concise dictionary, based on the full OED. There are many, many other sources that attest of the use of both "fuse" and "fuze" for modern ordnance, for instance on the Talk:Fuse (explosives) page. walk victor falk talk 03:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Supporters of this move would have you believe that "fuses" are low-tech and "fuzes" are high-tech. This is simply not possible from a historical and etymological point of view. The attested first use for "fuse" is from the 1640s, and for "fuze" since the early 1700s. As modern detonation devices were not invented until the latter part of the XIXth century, these two words must have remained synonymous with each other until at least then. If their became specialised we would expect the use of "fuze" to increase as modern munitions became more and more widespread, with a corresponding decline of "fuse". Instead, in this google Ngram, we observe the contrary: "fuse" use increases steadily, while "fuze" remains flat. Worse, the world wars create spikes for "fuses" which were by then fully modern, while "fuze" barely budges over the flatline. The only marked increase of "fuze" is a short spell in the middle of the XIXth century, due without a doubt to the Civil War when plenty of Americans had the opportunity to use the word "fuze" often but when cannonballs and explosives were still primitive.
To conclude: this distinction is at best an American specialised military technical jargon and contrary to wp:commmonname. At worst, a load of prescriptivist bollocks. walk victor falk talk 04:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the civilian word for artillery components? 8-) Of course it's an "army-ism", but that's entirely appropriate, given the context of what we're describing. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuze is what is written on artillery ammunition packaging in English speaking countries.

OFG Hogg in his 'Artillery: its Origin, Heyday and Decline'(1969)states the following (pg 183): 'The word "fuze" is often spelt "fuse" by those unaquainted with artillery usage. This is incorrect. "Fuse", derived from fusus, the past participle of fundo, means "to melt", e.g., the term "fuse-wire" used in electrical circuits. "Fuze", on the other hand, is the shortened or modern method of spelling "fuzee", meaning a tube filled with combustible material. It is a derivation of fusus, a spindle and from the French fusee, a spindle full of thread. It is well to make this point at the outset.'

You can use fuse wherever you want unless you are referring to the fuze that is a component of artillery ammunition.

The word 'fuze' appears to have been standard in UK military use in the early 20th Century. Eg Colonel HA Bethel RFA "Modern Artillery in the Field", Macmillan & CO, London, 1911. Don't have any contemporanious documents to check earlier.

Incidentally, 'Ordnance' is a term that does differ between UK and US usage. In US usage it does inded refer to munitions. In UK usage it refers to the complete barrel assembly (barrel, breech assembly, muzzle brake, fume extractor) of a gun or howitzer, hence guns' etc being formally designated in the form 'Ordnance, QF ****** on Carriage ***' and appearing on innumerable publications from Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Nfe (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I had a dollar for every time I have seen the spelling "fuse" (and the verb "defusing") in books and magazines and newspapers etc for the activating component of explosive devices (small-arms cartridges, shells, bombs, fireworks, etc), I could likely buy myself an army tank. This looks like another case of the army versus general civilian usage: compare the way that after WWII the general civilian colloquial usage of the singular of the word "commando" gradually changed from meaning a sort of regiment to meaning one man. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the "billion flies can't be wrong" argument. This is a term from a particular technical domain and we should follow WP:RS from that domain (see Hogg, above). This isn't a needlessly pedantic or (worst of all) obscure and impenetrable term, as it would be to replace "gun" with "ordnance". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spelling in article

[edit]

Based on the results of the requested move above I changed the spelling in the article from fuze to fuse expect where referring to a specific product or reference. However, User:Andy Dingley has reverted with the edit summary "fix mis-spelling, per cited refs." However given how the above discussion closed it seems clear to me that the consensus was that this wasn't a spelling issue but rather an ENGVAR issue and so it should stay at it's original spelling (fuse). Yes all the cited references use "fuze" but given the search results mentioned in the RM I'm sure we can find plenty of appropiate references for use in this article that use fuse so I don't think that arguement stands either. Most importantly however, it is my opinion that it is common sense that the article should be consistent with the title and I'd be saying the same if the above closed as move to fuze. It appears to me that Andy Dingley is ignoring the consensus above but not wanting to edit war I've brought it here for more opinions. Dpmuk (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We work from references here. The references cited in this article clearly demonstrate the use of "fuze" as the correct spelling for this context.
There is no WP:ENGVAR issue, US and UK references from the appropriate technical domain both agree on "fuze". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which was your arguement above and which consensus didn't agree with. I am aware that we work from references here (please assume good faith) but, as I'm also sure you're aware, we work on consensus here and consensus was that fuse is acceptable, and that this is an ENGVAR issue. If you don't believe that how do you explain the result of the move discussion? Dpmuk (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The move discussion was closed on the basis of the size of the arguments presented, not their quality. No account was seemingly taken of Anthony Appleyard's final comments, or his references to Hogg (one may generally assume Hogg to be canonical for almost anything military, certainly on artillery).
Dictionaries do not help here - they present both and do not distinguish between them. Despite claimed references to "the 1964 OED" and an online "Oxford Eymological Dictionary", neither of these are actually the OED (there is no 1964 OED edition). The actual OED (paper and online) gives both spelling and is silent on which is "correct". There are of course many uses of "fuse". These are either incorrect or colloquial, depending on the level of technical accuracy sought. Many abridged dictionaries do only use "fuse". You cited gHits to support a position that fuse was more popular, therefore correct, yet obviously neither gHits nor simple popularity is WP:RS.
The only coherent argument presented for "fuse" was an appeal to WP:COMMONNAME. The only trouble with that is that artillery is not generally a commonplace item. Amongst people for whom it is, "fuze" is universal.
This article has several references to WP:RS, all of which use fuze. There is also a reference to a fringe science patent from 1971 (which was in the original draft of this article, but really warrants deletion). This uses "fuse", but it also claims to be inventing them in 1971, decades too late, and it also mis-spells other words, including ordnance/ordinance, highlighting that its author has no familiarity with munitions. There was also an EL to Sandia, to an incomprehensible scrawled render that had no part in the article (uncited and otherwise a failure of WP:EL) that I suspect was only added as a proof by authority because it placed "fuse" alongside Sandia.
Fuse is widely used, but that doesn't make it correct. Our job is to be accurate, according to the sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxford Concise Dictionary". I am terribly, terribly sorry that I typed a E instead of a C. walk victor falk talk 17:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're simply re-making the arguemnents you made at WP:RM and it was decided by that discussion that consensus is against you. You might not like it but it is. You still have not given a reason why we should ignore that consensus (other than you don't like it which isn't relevant) and go with consistency with the article title. Dpmuk (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from attacking other editors, do you have any response to the fact that all the substantial references in this article use fuze, not fuse? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're clearly getting no where. I've asked for a 3rd opinion. Dpmuk (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than repeatedly claiming that gHits are an acceptable source, how about looking at relevant references? There's one in the article for the 106 fuze. British, dating from WW1. The question is not a popularity contest, it's about verifiable information from robust sources. Those sources, both US & UK, use fuze.
Google's choice of corpus is also highly suspect. You claim that "fuse" was the original British spelling, and you back this up with a Google search for proximity fuse which first appears in the 1940s. Yet if you look at the sources Google that is basing this "British English" corpus for "fuse" on, it turns out to be predominantly Popular Science, an American magazine.
gHits are still not RS. gHits with a suspect methodology, certainly not. 12:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The 1911 Britannica has the entry under "Fuze". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as the article is on contact fuse/fuze I tried that phrase instead in the ngrams given above (for the whole English corpus). When then looking at the various sources used to derive the data from the early part of the 20th C, "contact fuse" (the dominating spelling) was appearing in Electrical journals and referring to the bit of wire. So my guess is the ghits methodology would have to be carefuly tailored to eliminate those first. Not that I think they count for much against the seried ranks of references and military handbooks. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Go to your Google links for British spelling, then follow the sourcing links for the 1940s British spellings. The predominant source for these is Popular Mechanics. Andy Dingley (talk)
I assume this is because American papers are widely available through British library catalogues. walk victor falk talk 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I just to want to state the opposing position to make it sure I interpret it correctly. Please feel free to point out any inconsistencies and provide sources. Fuse was originally spelled "fuse" (and only "fuse"[dubious – discuss]), and meant exclusively a "burning" or "pyrotechnic" device. At some point of time, varying from "throughout the 19th century" to "WWII"[when?], depending on which archive of which fusze article talk page (contact, proximity, munition, explosive, artillery, and more) you consult, someone[who?] invented an "advanced" or "mechanical" device[clarification needed]. This innovator called his brand new contraption "fuze", and everybody called it that from then on and that's that, except for dyslectics and persons of extraordinary artistic extravagance. The End. walk victor falk talk 14:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was never quite so cut and dried originally. As has been discussed at great length in the other fuze articles, the spelling up to the 18th century was simply unstable (for English in general) between s and z spellings, particularly as so much was handwritten, rather than typeset. As a matter of orthography, s & z just weren't a big distinction. The OED today records the situation largely as it was at this time: all fuses of this time work by burning powder trains and they take their etymology from fuso or spindle, owing to their generally quill-like nature. This fuse spelling, for powder train fuses, survives today. Around the time of the Crimea, two things happen: a technological expansion of artillery, in particular with new ideas of mechanical and clock fuzes, also an increasing professionalism of standing armies and a printed codification of training materials. I cannot claim to know why z became favoured over s, but military sources from this period on are universal in their use of fuze, whether US or UK. There is no single "Hogspear's Patent Fuze" that changed artillery or one spelling as a single event. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble finding it but Bickford's patent of 1831 [3] for his device is a "Safety Fuze" unfortunately doesnt appear to be in UK IPTO online. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You won't find it - no UK patent on the web before 1/4/1979 - you have to buy it from here at 1GBP per page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I just wanted to make you aware that I've removed your request from the list at the Third Opinion Project since GraemeLeggett has provided a third opinion in the dispute. (Even if that was not his intent, his entry into the dispute counts as a third opinion due to the Third Opinion Paradox.) A warning reminder to both editors: An edit war is defined as editors trying "to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting." The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. Decide it by discussion, do a RFC, take it to MedCab, or use some other form of dispute resolution, but stop reverting. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the editors involved in this dispute has taken exception to my characterization of the current situation as being an edit war and has given reasons why it is not one, at least on his/her part. Without either expressly agreeing or disagreeing with the reasons presented, I'm going to accept his/her objections on face value, AGF, and have modified my comments above from a warning to a reminder. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Should the article use the spelling "fuse" or "fuze". Lots of discussion on this above (including the RM discussion). Dpmuk (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think people may be missing my main points here:

  1. The RM has been closed at leaving this article at fuse. Is it sensible that the spelling in the article differs from the tite.
  2. The discussion of whether "fuse" is appropiate was already had in the RM. As the RM was closed as keeping this article at fuse it seems to me that we already have a consensus that fuse is OK and so that's what should be in the article per WP:ENGVAR. Therefore I, personally, don't see the comments above as particularly useful because they should've been (and were) raised at the RM and there seems little point having that discussion again.

Irregardless of what spelling you think should be used does anyone have comments on the above, i.e. should we be consistent (between article title and text) and should the consensus in the RM discussion be used going forward? Dpmuk (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the RM flawed. The RM was poorly attended - with only three clear statements - one for and two opposed. If I had known about it I would have cited the predominant use of the Z spelling by Reliable Sources in support of putting the article at fuZe. If it had been flagged up for attention at Milhist I suspect there might have been more attendance and a clearer sense of consensus.
EngVar - I see the article text prior to 7th Feb was consistent in spelling so far as I can see. The spelling is not a clear(ish) distinction like -ise/-ize and as discussed above dictionaries do not seem to make it clearer.
If it isn't covered by Engvar then we can consider COMMONNAME "the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" and in my assumption that could be extended to the RS choice of spelling.
If germane points were not raised at a RM that does not preclude nor prevent discussion of them or even a second RM. Consensus can change.
Ideally the article title and text should be consistent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article at this article name? A common mistake made by civilians to confuse fuse/fuze is clearly not a suitable argument for keeping a page under what is plainly the wrong name. Fuse is an electrical component used in domestic appliances to stop idiots from burning down their houses. Fuze is the bit on the end of the bomb, shell, rocket, missile, grenade or other form of munition to make it go bang. This is not an army specific term, it is a generic term applied across munitions in general. It has nothing whatsoever to do with WP:ENGVAR and I speak as an aeronautical engineer with over 20 years experience in the design of guided weapons. I have never seen it described as anything other than a fuze. This clearly should be moved to Contact Fuze. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wee Curry Monster. WP:ENGVAR doesn't come into it; fuze is used in the handful of military history books I have, which were written by a British author and published in the UK. Brammers (talk/c) 11:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent moves and s vs z

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Contact fuse. The debate appears to be between "Contact fuse" and "Contact fuze"; as far as I can tell this move request is a distraction so I am going to move it back for now to how it was before the attempt to move it to Contact fuze. Please feel free to open an RM for Contact fuse->Contact fuze. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contact Fuse → Contact fuse – The article needs to use proper case. A contact fuse is a simple method of detonating a shell, so it should have the "fuse" spelling and not the "fuze" spelling for more complicated methods. Compare Proximity fuze The entries for Temp Contact Fuze should also be deleted.

There has been much debate about "fuse" vs "fuze". It's surfaced again with various moves resulting in the article being "Contact Fuse" (which has improper capitalization).

My understanding is different from above. A simple method of controlling detonation is a "fuse". Consequently, the slow burning string with black powder that gives time to get away is a "fuse". If the method of control is complicated (for example, uses electronics to sense position), then "fuze" is used. See discussion at Proximity fuze#fuze vs. fuse.

A contact fuse is a simple device, so it should have the "fuse spelling".

This article should be moved to "Contact fuse". - Glrx (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd already made a move request, so this one was actually redundant and hijacked the one in progress. It shouldn't have the fuze spelling as anyone who works in the field would be able to tell you. Given the discussion above this should have been an uncontroversial request. Why do editors who have no expertise feel the need to keep the article here? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move to Contact fuze

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. "Fuze" has been shown to be the more precise usage for the devices discussed in this article. Aervanath (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contact fuse → Contact fuze – Relisted. Discussion is still active. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Fuse is an electrical device. Ordnance devices, of any language, are fuze. British vs. American has nothing to do with it. See long (and referenced) past discussions on this talk page and at talk:Fuze. Also see the move request that was closed today. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Long overdue move, the comments about WP:ENGVAR are a complete red herring, this should have been uncontroversial given the discussion above. We shouldn't keep this article at the wrong name out of pure ignorance. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see the issue as so simple, and the material above has some misdirection. The electrical protection device is spelled fuse, but its spelling is irrelevant for this issue. Dictionaries are not reasonable sources for technical definitions. I'm also not sure that WP:ENGVAR can be discarded; the distinction appears to be clearer in the UK than in the US.
The spelling for the low tech time delay device is fuse. Such a fuse is suitable for igniting low-order explosives such as black powder. Such a fuse can be used with a blasting cap/detonator to trigger a high explosive. I am not aware of the delay fuse/blasting cap combination being termed a "fuze".
My prior understanding is that a simple detonator for an artillery shell is a fuse. I haven't found an early description of a time delay fuse.
A point contact detonator would ordinarily be a simple fuse, but it gets termed both ways. US Patent 2537855 (1944), "Point Contact Fuse" is a confusing example: the title uses "fuse", but the body text uses "fuze". US Patent 3769911 (1971), "Contact Fuse", consistently uses "fuse". US Patent 3961578 (1974), "Point-Detonating Projectile Fuze", and US Patent 4159679 (1977), "Projectile Fuze", adhere to the z spelling (and both are US Army patents). US Patent 6604467 (2002), "Safety System for a Projectile Fuse", is by British inventors; interestingly, "fuse" only appears in the title. The US seems to go both ways.
A sophisticated detonator for a munitions is often termed a fuze (e.g., proximity fuze), but American English for this is also confused. There are patents that describe proximity fuses. US Patent 2403567 (1942), "Electrially Energized Fuse", uses the "fuse" spelling even for a proximity fuse. US Patent 3871296 (1951), "Electrostatic Proximity Fuse".
An initiator for a grenade is sometimes termed a "fuze".
The Ian Hogg explanation with different roots is interesting and suggests the distinction about detonating high order explosives. That doesn't mean that the US hasn't corrupted the root for fuze into fuse.
I will look some more. Baxter might be good.
Glrx (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read this article ?
Have you read the references in this article?
Have you read the references for artillery fuzes, in this article?
"doesn't mean that the US hasn't corrupted" This is not a WP:ENGVAR issue. Never was. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your prior understanding is wrong. Tell me please what do you base this on? Do you work in the field, have you served in the armed forces? I've worked with weapons my entire adult life and it has only ever been referred to as a fuze.
As noted by Andy above, have you actually looked at the article and the references therein? This is not a WP:ENGVAR issue and never was. You seem to have decided on the answer and are looking for sources to support your pre-conceived notion. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we now replacing WP:RS with "common usage" ? Yes, 's' is common. However 'z' is correct.
So free generalist web dictionaries trump the many specialist sources that are cited both here and at fuze? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry bud, it's in http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fuse--2, and the Oxford English Dictionary is hardly "general". You're advocating to the wrong person here, and your replies to everyone who opposes this motion is only going to become counter-productive in the end. You really should let people vote without harassing their comments with pointless sarcasm. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See past discussion re the OED at Talk:Fuze, bud. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change my opinion. American English is derived from British English, no matter what dictionary you read. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, anyone who tries to argue WP:IJDLI is not arguing from reason or logic, more a case of ignorance and actually WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. More likely as is typical experts are scum and we have to weave in the skeleton theory see WP:RANDY for an instructive essay. Some of us actually do this for a living and might know a thing or two about it. Just ignore all the sources that show you're wrong, when a free dictionary can reinforce your preconceived notion, and ignore all precadents going before it. Ah well. BTW anyone lecturing about pointless sarcasm shouldn't be a) lecturing people who know what they're talking about and b) using illogical arguments like WP:IJDLI. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do what for a living - personal attacks or canvassing [4]? Being an "expert" in a field has absolutely nothing to do with spelling, that has to be the most futile argument I've heard in my entire life, along with the superfluous puffery in your comment, which says much, but means very little. There are a lot of people in the UK work in banks and cash "cheques", whilst in the US they cash "checks". Are we to assume American's are "the only ones who are ever right"? Expert knowledge is based on the knowledge therein not the ENGVAR spelling, making your "expert opinion" somewhat an obtuse and moot point. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 17:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, asking for experts to contribute is not canvassing. I'm genuinely amused by the argument that someone with expertise in a field would have no knowledge of spelling. BTW I'm Scottish, so I suggest you don't continue with your rather too obviuous presumption. In addition, replying in that manner whilst complaining of an alleged personal attack is also greatly amusing. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement). Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking." (From WP:CANVAS)
Conclusive proof it is canvassing, and your motives are designed to sway consensus. And if your "expert" knowledge comes from a military background, you have learned little in the way of discipline. Scottish? So what "fuzes" are we referring to that get used there - rags of cloth in bottles of petrol? Glad you're amused. Anyone whose userpage begins "I don't give a shit" is neither an expert nor competent. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 18:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, as it seems you're sole interest is starting a pointless argument I wish you adieu. Enjoy having the last word. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly a "common name", yet the article has already been prod'ed and AfD'ed for non-notability. Where is this "common usage" coming from? Of the references on this article, how many of them use 'fuze' and how many 'fuse' ? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For this, I ran the gHits test (yes, I know, but it's a good quick baseline indicator, especially for comparisons). Both searches included the "-wiki" string. "Contact fuse", 58,000 ghits, "Contact fuze", 8,980 gHits. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what's in the top hits returned for your search? "How to contact Fuse Productions" and "Contact fuse for one-time programmable memory".
gHits are never much use at the best of times, but when it's a narrow technical term that's a homonym for a term in a more common field, then it's really misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, FFS its liking banging your head against a brick wall. Every time this is proposed, loads of people who don't know the subject come out of the woodwork to block it, then melt away again leaving others to work on it. Have any of you looked at the sources provided? Did anyone read the comments above. Fuse is simply not used in this context. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Contact fuse". [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. All from army.mil, af.mil, and navy.mil. Still going to say it's "simply not used"? - The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am, because its not, how many of those references are post-WW2? Its no longer used, the modern context standardised on fuze a long time ago. Some people seem incapable of understanding the difference between a loop of saltpetre soaked cord per Fuse (Explosives) and the widget that makes a weapon go bang per Fuze. So I repeat the two questions - Did you look at the sources above and did you read the discussion? yes/no. I would have more respect if you had rather than trawling google to back up an a priori position on an article you have not contributyed to, on a subject you appear to have little domain knowledge. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm...you did see the references referring to the Maverick and RAM missiles, the latter of which wasn't introduced into service until the 1990s, right? Yes, I read the references, and yes, I read the discussion, and my position is exactly the same. As for having "domain knowledge" the very point of Wikipedia is that one doesn't have to be an expert in order to learn about and contribute to it.. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[15] Nope, Maverick is an ancient design, that first went into service in 1972. So on that respect you're wrong but kudos, yes you managed to find one of the few pages on af.mil to get the spelling wrong. Check the link to the left and you'll find plenty more that get it right. As to your latter point see WP:RANDY and then perhaps understand why it is so frustrating to be lectured that this is a spelling issue per WP:ENGVAR when it is positively not. Contributing without domain knowledge requires you do research with an open mind, not seek sources to justify an a priori position and actually finding enough about the subject not to obstruct those genuinely striving to improve the article. Thats what you're doing right now. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whether to use fuse or fuze appears to be more of a general–technical choice than an American–British choice. This is a "technical" article and, if it can be clearly demonstrated that fuze is strongly preferred on both sides of the Atlantic in this context, it would appear to be more appropriate to use the "technical" spelling. If this is the case, the justification for this RM ("Ordnance devices, of any language, are fuze. British vs. American has nothing to do with it.") needs to be supported by reliable references, both American and British, that explicitly deal with distinguishing fuze from fuse in military or explosives parlance. This is currently lacking and must now be demonstrated; simply repeating assertions that fuze is "correct" is not particularly authoritative. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, look up, it is above in the previous discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all I can see above is different people offering different patents and texts that simply use "their" spelling. I did not ask for that; I asked for military references that explicitly address when to use fuze as opposed to fuse, in order for it to be clearly demonstrated that fuze, as opposed to fuse, is more appropriate to use in this article. Quotes about the specialized use of fuze, please? Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it can be difficult to find among the clutter Wee Curry Monster talk 08:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry—it was, as you aptly said, lost "among the clutter". Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Without detailed knowledge of any sort of fuses/fuzes, I admit that I was skeptical of the justification for this RM when I first saw it. The case for the move has been poorly articulated and justified by its proponents, which I think they will admit themselves. Now, however, I can see two reasons for it to be moved, and no reason for it to stay at Contact fuse:
    • Technical spelling: The arguments against the move have been based on WP:ENGVAR, but it appears that WP:ENGVAR is, despite appearances, a red herring in this case. With an explicit reference from an old UK-published military text (surely, the least likely sort of source to endorse an "American" spelling and rule out a "British" one) provided that explains that, in technical use, the spelling fuze is used for "a tube filled with combustible material" (which this apparently is), while fuse is "incorrect", it would appear that fuse cannot be the appropriate spelling to use in this technical article. I am aware that general dictionaries, both American and British, usually prefer fuse in all contexts, with fuze being more tolerated in the US than in the UK; however, this is not a general article and should therefore use the appropriate technical spelling.
    • ENGVAR itself: WP:ENGVAR states that "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." With the current ceasefire being the title using fuse and the article using fuze—entirely unacceptable, I must point out—it is surely appropriate to go to the first non-stub revision and make our decision based on that. In other words, even if this is a WP:ENGVAR issue, we should look at the article history itself to resolve this. The first non-stub revision[16] was written by the nominator of the move, Andy Dingley, a Briton who is undoubtedly this article's major contributor, who used British English (note armour) with consistent use of fuze (which has been shown to be perfectly acceptable in technical use in the UK).
Even if the quoted reference is putting the preference for fuze in technical use too strongly by describing fuse as "incorrect", WP:ENGVAR supports this article being written in British English with fuze. Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. !Vote changed - See below. I still think this is largely an ENGVAR issue and unlike Some standardized rigour I think the very first edit is substantial enough to determine usage. That said if more sources like OFG Hogg are found I am likely to change my !vote but at the moment I don't see enough evidence that this is not a simple ENGVAR / common name issue and instead a correctness issue. One book is a start but that book could be atypical and other authors could disagree. Regardless I'll make the point again that however this move is closed the use in the article should match the title. At the moment the system is being gamed by those editors supporting "fuze". They can't get the title changed as an RM inevitably attracts more opinions but once the RM is over those who oppose the move pay less attention again and so those supporting "fuze" are in the majority and so enforce that spelling in the article. This makes wikipedia look silly. I take their point that being technically incorrect would also do so but wikipedia works on consensus and they should accept that consensus is that it's not incorrect - consensus is one of the key building blocks of wikipedia and the "fuze" editors are avoiding it because they don't like the result, but that's not how wikipedia works. Dpmuk (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only article on fuzes in wikipedia to have a title with the incorrect use of fuse. What makes wikipedia look silly is keeping the article at the incorrect name, because people don't understand the subject or continue with a common misconception long after it has been explained and demonstrated to them. WP:CONSENSUS does not allow for incorrect information to be put into an article and it is simply ludicrous to argue that consensus allows you to do so. Further its not just one source, Hogg, its multiple sources. I could add the Handbook on Weaponry by Rheinmetall, p.607, the Textbook of Ballistics and Gunnery by HMSO or any one of a number of similar textbooks. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the ridiculous state of this article: whether moved or not, the spelling in the article must be brought in line with the title once this RM is closed. I, too, would like to see more quotations presented here. Some standardized rigour (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look all of the sources use "fuze", you will not find any technical source that doesn't. As Hogg notes, you'll find some non-technical sources that use fuse incorrectly. So you'd be bringing it into line with a spelling contradicted by every technical source. So do you remove all technical sources and the content it supports to use non-technical sources in preference, or have the even more ludicrous situation of having the article use a spelling at odds with its sources? That would be ridiculous. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if I may weigh in on the issues. Theere are policies that touch on this, though not directly. Policy on article title includes " title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation " and "Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other". There is no specific link to either variety, so that is not an issue. Secondly, the use of the variety of English it is written in. The original article - a stub - used both "fuse" and "ordinance" - the latter is a US term or a typo; British English used "ordnance" so it's English variety is uncertain. Guidance on variety used in the article includes "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default". I think the first non-stub version of the article is this one by AndyDingley in which the Z spelling is introduced throughout. I also note that "proper names" should rendered in their form - so we could end up with consistent spelling of "fuse" throughout the article, except every time a fu(s/z)e's name is used, which in that case ought to be explained for the reader. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem Graeme is that this is not a WP:ENGVAR issue at all, as even in the UK the correct technical term would be fuze. Fuse is often confused with fuze incorrectly as it happens but the policy of WP:ENGVAR is a red herring here. I think its telling that it was presumed that Andy and I were American, I'm Scottish. According to the policies we have per WP:RS and WP:V it should be fuze, and even with the incorrect application of WP:ENGVAR it would be fuze. Yet here we have a proposal to edit an article to introduce a spelling error that contradicts the very sources its based on. Its bizarre. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to illustrate with quotes from policy that if anyone was arguing from an Engvar point that they had nothing to stand on (since there is no cultural link and the initial article spelling doesn't count), and therefore that left sources as the determinant. Plus the possibly bizarre situation of an article name (determined by consensus - or lack thereof) being in conflict with sourced text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'll expand a bit given the comments above. We all know that the military can use terms differently to the larger community, and although I can't think of an example where this occurs with respect to spelling I see no reason why it couldn't. According to the common name principle an article should be at the name users should expect them to be at and this would be the spelling most commonly in use in the wider community. Now I'd accept that if a name was incorrect for some reason that this should usurp common name but usage stats or pointing to military sites using "fuze" aren't going to prove this one way or another as they could just be different communities spelling it differently. This is effectively still ENGVAR except instead of UK/US it's military / wider world. Hence the reason I'm looking for sources discussing the spelling not just using one or the other. Hogg says that "Fuse" is wrong but I'm loath to base decisions on one source as they may not represent wider views. If there are other sources discussing the sources I'd appreciate quotes being posted so that they can be evaluated. If there are multiple sources discussing the spelling and all saying "fuse" is incorrect then I'd change my vote. It would be nice if at least one source wasn't from a military background (e.g. a newspaper style guide) although this may be hard to come by. I disagree with GraemeLeggett on the interpretation of ENGVAR although I can understand their point of view so I suspect we're just going to have to accept we differ there. Dpmuk (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ammunition section "Fuzes" any help re military vs wider world usage? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ENGVAR at all, nor is it one of COMMON name either. In case you hadn't noticed I also name two authorative sources above namely the Rheinmetall Handbook on Weaponry and the Textbook of Gunnery and Ballistics; those are in addition to Hogg. A common spelling error does not make it a common name. I notice Graeme has posted a link to a non-military text so perhaps we can expect to see you change your vote. Why are people who know nothing about the subject so hell bent on keeping this article at the wrong name? Wee Curry Monster talk 11:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question, and to put it as simply as I can, because you've yet to show it is a spelling error. Hogg goes someway towards this but as I state is only one source. Otherwise your argument seems to be "I and some other editors are expects and you should take our word for it". Unfortunately wikipedia does not work like that and requires sources - partly because it's impossible to prove your credentials. If the two sources you mention above discuss the spelling then please quote them here. Sources that just use one spelling aren't really persuasive for reasons I discuss above. The 1911 link goes some way to making me think your point may be valid and if both the sources you mention discuss the spelling and agree with your point of view then I will change my !vote. But until I see some quotes from those books discussing the spelling I don't think you've made your case. Dpmuk (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: presenting more quotes from sources such as Hogg will certainly give the case for the move more credibility. Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK you have Hogg defining it explicitly, I've pointed out in addition the Textbook of Ballistics and Gunnery, published originally by RARDE or the Royal Armament and DEvelopment Establishment, under the aegis of HMSO or Her Majesty's Stationary Office. In addition the Rheinmetall Handbooks on Weaponry as translated by RMCS (Royal Military College of Science) Shrivenham. Every reference in the article uses fuze and you still want me to provide more quotes, when you have supplied nothing to back up keeping it at the incorrect spelling other than personal belief in ENGVAR. Then there is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I mean short of marching you into the library at Shrivenham or at Fort Halstead are you just going to sit there demanding more quotes, then saying it still isn't enough? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If those sources only use "fuze" rather than discuss whether it's correct then no, it's not. As as adequately been shown above there are plenty of military sources use "fuse". You say this is an error on their part, something I can definitely belief is possible, but for me to be convinced that this is the case, rather than people using different, equally valid, spelling I would like to see evidence that shows it is a mistake. Yes, Hogg does so but that is only one source so hardly evidence that "fuse" is widely held to be incorrect. So far you have shown that "fuze" is widely used while others have shown that "fuse" is as well but so far you've yet to prove to me that "fuse" is wrong. Convincing me that fuze is widely used (which was done a long time ago) will not convince me that fuse is wrong. If the military sources only (or almost only) used fuze then I would probably accept your argument but that's not the case. If you produce one more quite that discusses the spelling and says that "fuse" is wrong then that will be enough for me. The fact that you've yet to provide more evidence that fuse is wrong suggests to me that the situation is no where near as clear cut as you think. Dpmuk (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, this UK MoD source uses both spellings in the same article. If it wasn't for Hogg I'd say all the evidence was that both spelling were equally acceptable. Hogg as I say isn't enough to me to prove that "fuse" as it's only one old source, and usage can change. Dpmuk (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slide 4 in this presentation is one example of a document which explains the difference. - David Biddulph (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From that presentation:

I find it amazing that you can present evidence after evidence, source after source, and you look and find one example with a spelling mistake and thats enough to re-inforce your pre-conceived and incorrect notion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I find it amazing that you can seem to forget all the other evidence given that "fuse" is used - it was hardly one source. What about the patent results given by Glrx, the Google results and military documents given by The Bushranger and the evidence given in previous discussions. Please explain to me how that adds up to "one source".
You seem to be accusing me of being stubborn and ignoring the evidence. That has never been the case. I have consistently said that I was not going to find usage stats persuasive but if more evidence was given that one spelling was wrong I'd change my !vote. I note that it was not you that went and found the evidence. If you'd gone and found a source like that found by David Biddulph after my initial !vote instead of just repeatedly accusing me of being wrong / stubborn etc none of this conversation would have been necessary. Dpmuk (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support now that more evidence has finally been presented that one spelling is wrong. I'm only going to weak support as although there's good evidence that "fuze" is considered wrong in the military - the Hogg reference and the US Marines reference found by David Biddulph - there is still only weak evidence that it is considered wrong by the wider community and we should be doing what all readers will find least surprising. I accept that such evidence is probably going to be hard to come by so I won't oppose the move on that ground but it does mean that my support can only be described as weak. Dpmuk (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contact_fuze&oldid=1195093026"