Talk:Swinging light test

Latest comment: 3 years ago by No such user in topic Move to international (instead of American) title

Move to international (instead of American) title edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Swinging light test; WP:COMMONALITY arguments are persuasive. Now, according to MOS:HYPHEN, this should be Swinging-light test but I'm reluctant to move to a form that was not mentioned in the discussion and, on a quick skim, is rare in sources. No such user (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply


Swinging-flashlight testSwinging light test – I think that we should use the international name for this subject rather than the American name, as it's an international subject. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Weak oppose: WP:ENGVAR allows some degree of nation-specific language flavour. No Wikipedia guideline was cited to justify the move. The article about this type of light is at the title Flashlight. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Swinging flashlight" is the common name ("swinging flashlight" on PubMed has 69 results [1], "swinging light" has 5 [2]), secondly I don't see indications that international institutions recommend one over the other. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Support As an American physician, I would recognize "swinging light test" readily; I also would agree that localisms ("flashlight", "torch") don't stand up to much scrutiny. To common usage as measured in Pubmed, "swinging torch test" retrieves 0 results, "swinging flashlight test" retrieves 63, and "swinging light test" retrieves 5. I don't find the numerical results to provide a compelling rationale to support "flashlight" and would endorse "light" as an easily understood and more inclusive term in this context. — soupvector (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per MOS:COMMONALITY: For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable. Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. TompaDompa (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per MOS:COMMONALITY per TompaDompa. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per pubmed stats cited above. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Support for clarity. The test works as well no matter whether the light used can formally be called a flashlight. BD2412 T 04:11, 2 December 2020 (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.