Talk:Engineer's blue

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to remain separate. --Kierkkadon^{talk/contribs} 18:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the formulation of the two may be different, the terminology is mix in natural usage, and I think it would be easy to note the formulation differences. Wizard191 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The confusion of terms is properly noted in the Engineer's blue article, which is good. The terminology may be mixed, but it's not just the formulation that is different; the purpose of these two blues are different as well. They're totally different things, so should be separate. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Despite the confusion of terms IRL, one article would be able to make the distinctions in a more graceful way. Msaunier (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree the terms might be merged in use, but what the article calls "engineering blue" is also known as "bearing blue" and it specifiecally used for fitting checks because it never dries, whereas "layout blue" is made to dry out and not transfer from one surface to another via contact. desbromilow (User talk:desbromilow) 11:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Desbromilow (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.