Talk:Nottingham Asphalt Tester

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was

Nottingham Asphalt Tester → Nottingham asphalt tester –

Like telephone, it's generic. This is one that Enric Naval has reverted after I downcased it.

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose This the proper name of a specific machine built by Cooper and sold under that commercial name. It must be patented because I haven't seen any model from other companies. If this is the generic name of a type of machines, then I haven't found the evidence.

And, of course, this is not an article on generic asphalt testers that happened to be discovered in Nottingham. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm struggling to conceive of the difference. Tony (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this: "Nottingham Asphalt Tester" is a product name of a specific product. Product names are proper names and are capitalized. It doesn't stop being a product name because some of its words have a generic meaning in other contexts. Otherwise, we would downcase product name likes Ford Squire, Chevrolet Task Force, or iPod Touch. I can see other product names that are composed exclusively by generic terms, like Reliant Fox, GAZelle, Photoshop, Discovery Studio or Logical Domains. They are all uppercased, always. (Except when the manufacturer indicates a certain capitalization, and reliable sources decide to follow it, the most famous example being the iPod.)

Now, if there is somewhere a whole category of products called generically "Nottingham asphalt testers", I haven't seen it. -Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Here you have another specific product, Model H-3860 (Los Angeles Abrassion Machine). In this laboratory page[1] they only capitalize the Nottingham and the Los Angeles machines, all the other products are downcased. I say that this is because they are the only product names of in the list, all the other are generic names of a type of products that everyone can manufacture. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

What is it?

The article says what this equipment does, but not what it is. It asserts that it is an invention, implying that it is more than a piece of equipment carrying out existing tests in a convenient way. I don't know whether it is, in point of fact, notable; the information provided and sourced doesn't assert or support this. 2 out of 3 links are dead. Pol098 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Re-write the article

The article is on a widley used peice of equipment used by almost all civil engineering laboratories. Needs re-writing incase the current text is violating copyrights and thus should not be enitirely deleted

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.geotestusa.com/Catalog/ItemInfo.php?id=B1900. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)