This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
Although gas combustion retort is a general type of retort, the Gas Combustion Retort is a name of the specific retort and therefore it should be spelled with capital letters. All given sources spell it with capital letters. Therefore, I agree that process may be spelled by small letter, but it would be correct to spell words Gas Combustion Retort with capital letters. Beagel (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, is there any way of making it clearer at the outset of the article that the topic does refer to a specific process? I must say that I'm a little confused: do you mean that the one developed by the Bureau of Mines is the generic process (it talks of three retorts); then there's the process that came out of the corporate consortium. In the second pdf file here, it's downcased. And this source talks of "An improved method for obtaining oil from oil shale by the gas combustion retort process." (1971) It's no big deal to me, but along with the up/down-case issue often comes the problem of whether an article clarifies the generic from the specific. Can you help? In the end, I don't mind if you revert. Tony(talk)11:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems that different sources use differently upper- and lowercases. I think that for standardization it would be better to leave it as it is at the current moment. Beagel (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
