Talk:Wetting current

Requested move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. This appears to be the common name for the subject, regardless of national variety of English. Discussion of potential merges should continue below. Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Whetting current → Wetting current – I propose to move the article "Whetting current" over the existing redirect "Wetting current", which reflects the much more common spelling of the term. "Whetting current" itself should become a redirect to "Wetting current" to catch the alternative spelling. We should not redirect to the switch article (as we did before) because switches are only one of several applications for wetting currents, and we cannot reasonably discuss the others in the switches article. Instead, the switch article should refer to "Wetting current" as the new main article on the subject. The redirect from "Sealing current" should go to "Wetting current" as well. Sealing current is a term used throughout the telecommunication industry. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I can handle either solution so not an objection to the move request, but should not an encyclopaedia show the correct spelling even if not the common spelling in the USA? I assume wiktionary:whetting comes from the English word wiktionary:whet.--Traveler100 (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Google Books gives me one dubious looking hit on "whetting current" in context of electrical current through contacts, and a couple hundred hits on "wetting current" - surely some Tata-McGraw Hill book would use the extra H if it was at all common. Another book on British cars here [1], which talks about the "colours" of wires, also refers to "wetting" current. IEEE Std. 100 is no help as it defines neither "wetting current" nor "whetting current". --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have seen both, "wetting current" and "whetting current", but the former is by far more common, that's why I propose the move. If we can find a reliable source discussing the origin of the term, we should use whatever it reflects. However, so far I haven't found a source discussing the origin of the term at all, and both, to wet and to whet (don't) make sense to a degree. Given that this is an old term, it's even possible, that both were/are correct. Let's find out and adopt accordingly *afterwards*. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested to see the spelling "whetting current"; Google Books finds one hit. Let's just put the content into the correct spelling. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Only admins can delete articles to make room for the move, and since "Wetting current" already exists as a redirect, we could do so only by copying over the contents (which would be wrong procedure). Proper procedure is to move the article over to the new location including its edit history.

Irony has it that I would have started this as a technical move, but didn't because I learnt from the edit history, that you had previously redirected to the switch article, so this was no longer uncontroversial... I would not mind to reduce this move request to a technical move over "Wetting current", but I will leave the decision to others. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• rename to "wetting current" per WP:COMMONNAME. For sources, I would suggest pre-1980s telephony references. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• rename ( "move", whatever) to wetting current as the most common spelling. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Hold on WP:ENGVAR requires that the article should retain the spelling from the variant of English that the article was originally written in. The spelling 'whetting' is the British English spelling of the term. WP:ENGVAR does also go on to state that the spelling should not be changed without a clear concensus to do so (or the logical dual: that the spelling can be changed if there is a broad concensus). In general terms, the original English variant should be retained unless there is a very good reason for it to be changed. That the American English speakers spell the word a different way is not an adequate reason (that's why the policy exists). The spellings throughout the article should be restored to match the title. There is nothong wrong, of course, with a redirect from 'Wetting current'. I B Wright (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Brit. I've also been a telephone engineer, where "wetting current" was an everyday term. I also work as a woodworker with manual tools, thus lots of hand sharpening. I even polish Japanese swords (which is substantially more skilled than it sounds). I have substantial experience and reference library on abrasives, sharpening and "whetting". My even larger library on electrical engineering from the 19th century (UK & US) onwards doesn't confuse the two. The OED (by which I mean the real four foot of shelf space version) clearly distinguishes them. I have never before heard the "whetting" spelling applied to the electrical context.

This is no ENGVAR, it's a typo. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Im also a Brit! I have regularly come across both spellings, but I had always assumed that 'whetting' was English and that 'wetting' was a product of creeping Americanism. My (1970 odd) edition of Collins Technical Dictionary lists 'Whetting' and notes, "... also spelt wetting (US)". Under 'Wetting' it simply says "see Whetting". A very old (pre world war II) text book that I inherited from my father, has the spelling 'whetting' throughout. So it would seem to be an ENGVAR matter. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You're going to have to cite title and page number before I'd believe you're not just disagreeing with Wtshymanski for the sake of disagreeing with Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I also have an established track record of dislike of Wtshymanski's editing style. However, in this case, I cannot do anything other than take the pragmatic approach. I am aware of the historical spelling of 'whetting current' (I am over 60!). However, modern (as in this century) reference works use the spelling 'wetting current'. If there is 'creeping Americanism', then in this case, it seems to have resolutely crept. As such, I believe that this is one case where there should be a "broad consencus" that the spelling that appears to now be in use on both sides of the pond should be used. Of course: there is no problem with Whetting current being a redirect to Wetting current for those who remember the correct English spelling and may search for it. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm neither Brit nor American, but even if it would turn out that both spelling variants are (or were) valid at some time in history, I'm not sure if WP:ENGVAR would apply here, given that whetting current was created just a couple of days ago on 2012-10-25T17:31:24, whereas wetting current exists since 2006-09-25T15:58:20‎, but was turned into a redirect to the switch article by Wtshymanski on 2012-04-24T16:26:08‎, whereas whetting current was turned into the same redirect not before 2012-11-01T15:30:47‎ by Wtshymanski as well. This and the fact, that the text at whetting current was about twice as long it once was under wetting current are the only reasons why I reverted his redirect and started to add to whetting current rather than wetting current, knowing that wetting current is the far more common spelling variant at least today. I do think that WP:COMMONNAME supports my move request. Nevertheless I am interested into the history of the term, as this is certainly something that could be added to the article as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The history is quite simple. There is a language called English that has evolved over history by a country called England (not without considerable support from Wales, Scotland and Ireland). There is also a shit hole of a country called the United States of America that is full of lazy people who cannot be arsed to learn any spelling that is in any way different from that in which a word is pronounced (or indeed any grammatical rules that require any brain work (or indeed anything that requires thinking - hence the absence of roundabouts on American roads)). I made the mistake of visiting the country once and have no intention of repeating the experience. We in Britain have to suffer with out television programmes having to be made with dialogue in American because the Americans will not allow any programme to be imported with English dialogue. Unfortunately, I cannot lay the blame for any of this at Wtshymanski's door because he is not an American. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"hence the absence of roundabouts on American roads"

Roundabouts are an American invention. The rest of your diatribe is about as accurate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Really. Then isn't it strange that on the one ocassion that I visited America and drove some quite large distances, that I never encountered a singe roundabout. The rest of my description of Americans is one hundred percent accurate. Even in the last hotel I stayed in, I was always aghast at the Americans who always took the lift (having waited several minutes for it) rather than walk up just three steps into the car park. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This move proposal is a violation of the WP:ENGVAR rule. Moving articles just to change the variety of English is forbidden unless strong national ties can be demonstrated, which is not the case here. Roger (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a national language variation - no-one spells it "whetting current", not even the Tata-McGraw Hill books. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean, America doesn't spell it 'whetting'. 'Whetting' is the correct British English spelling of the word regardless of what you may like to believe. Wikipedia policy states that it cannot be changed as things stand. Unfortunately, it is true that the majority of British engineers seem to have succumbed to the American spelling, but the rules under WP:ENGVAR don't seem to cover that point other than to permit the change only if there is a broad consencus, which there isn't at present. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Tata-McGraw Hill editors don't spell it "whetting current", either, from what I can see on Google Books. If "the majority of British engineers" spells it "wetting current", then by definition that's the correct spelling there, too, and Wikipedia should follow the usage of the majority. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have already agreed with you. But WP:ENGVAR does not, so unless a broad consencus can be achieved, that's the end of it. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While your nationalistic diatribes further above have disqualified your views from any serious consideration inside or outside of Wikipedia, there are no "wars" to win, anyway. This is just about finding the best most title we can give an interesting subject of electrical engineering or applied physics, and foremost it should meet WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Both terms are precise and concise. Consistency either does not apply here or it would be in favour to "wetting current", because that is the term used in the English Wikipedia for this phenomenon since 2006-09, when the article wetting current (without h!) was originally created (before it was changed into a redirect to switch in 2012-04. No article "whetting current" ever existed at this time, as it was created not before 2012-10-25, just a couple of days before it was turned into a redirect to switch as well on 2012-11-01. Since I wanted to add information to the article beyond the scope of the switch article, I had to revert one of the redirects and change the other. I always preferred wetting current, because this is the term under which the phenomenon is known almost universally today (check books, check Google and always have our criteria of recognizability and naturalness in mind!), but decided to first add some information and then move the article to the IMHO more correct place, and therefore I reverted the still fresh redirect of whetting current rather than that of wetting current. At this time I was not aware that whetting current was created just a couple of days earlier, while wetting current already existed for years, otherwise I would have gone a different route and added my information to wetting current - but I just looked at the recent edit history. This isn't important for myself at all, but when I see WP:ENGVAR being brought on the table, it may make a difference, as depending on one's view, I may accidently even have become the first real contributor to the article, in the sense, that I was the first to add originally new information, researched published sources in various languages and created new (rather non-obvious) inter-wiki links like Frittstrom, whereas the original creator contributed just a slightly more verbose/precise version of what was already stated in the switch and wetting current articles before without really adding anything new (I don't want to smaller the creator's contribution in any way, just show that he didn't add anything really new - the true first contributors have been those editors who created the wetting current article years ago). This is just to show that the WP:ENGVAR argument does lead nowhere, if it would apply at all. After all, we even don't know if the term was originally derived from "to whet" or "to wet". Both verbs make sense to a degree, and both verbs exist in both English flavours, British and American English.

Therefore we should just concentrate on finding the best possible subject title for the future (this was the intention of my RM), rather than debating over local spelling variants (if they differ at all in this case) - in either way. It does not add to the discussion, it's bureaucracy. Content counts. Not only for this project it should be totally irrelevant which nationalities we happen to have and languages we speak. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively you could try reading what I have actually said before launching into a long winded rant (WP:TLDR). I have stated - twice now - that I believe that the spelling should be changed to 'wetting' as the 'whetting' seems to be obsolete. Whether you like it or not, my opinion on the subject is every bit as valid as yours but in this case we seem to concur.

Addressing the WP:ENGVAR issue and trying as before to take a pragmatic approach, I have looked into the history of this whole affair. There are (or were) two articles. The first under Wetting current was created in September 2006. The second Whetting current was (apparently) independantly created in October 2012 but contained more words (if not that much more material). The position was complicated because our resident mergaholic proposed the former article to be merged with Switch in April 2012 and after allowing the usual all too brief period for discussion, actually merged it just nine days later. On the 1st November, the redirect was changed to point to this article. As far as the WP:ENGVAR policy is concerned, then the technically correct response is that the original article (here) was written using the US English spelling of the term and that it should not have been changed to British English without that broad consencus. Although it was not directly changed, the change has come about unintentionally and indirectly (thus although the policy was breached, no one person is actually guilty). In view of the subject material, such as it is, being contained in the Switch article, I thus propose that the current article be turned into a redirect to Switch#Wetting current and that the redirect at Wetting current be similarly adjusted. The Switch article should note the archaic spelling just to keep everyone happy. Problem solved! 86.159.159.194 (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to hold my hands up to this one. When I looked at this article's history, it did not occur to me to check up on the previous history of Wetting current. I did have a cursory look but all I saw was a redirect. But, yes: you are quite correct, there is an article with the US spelling that predates this article. It also appears that you are also correct that this article does appear to have been independently created. Your proposal does seem to be the most expedient way to dispose of the matter without having to interpret the technicalities of WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. I B Wright (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not normally object the merge into the switch article, but the topic of w[h]etting currents does not really belong into there (that's why I reverted the redirect ;-). While w[h]etting currents are certainly used in conjunction with switches, this is only one of several rather diverse applications.

They are also used to avoid contact oxidation of contacts and splices, so the topic belongs to connections, connectors or perhaps metallic surfaces as well - topics which are completely off-topic in the switch article.

Further, I meanwhile found some reliable German sources making it clear that w[h]etting current and Frittstrom (Strom = current) are (rather) different names for exactly the same phenomenon. The German WP has an article on de:Frittspannung (Spannung = voltage), which belongs to Frittstrom as well. These old German terms are derived from an archaic device named de:Fritter, which could be loosly translated as "fryer", but is known as coherer in the English speaking world. If you read these articles, they do not seem to be related to w[h]etting currents in the first place, while for our ancestors and their early technology there must have been an obvious connection, a knowledge which must have gone lost over the centuries. I hope that we can unearth these connections again in order to improve the related articles, but it is already clear, that there is more to w[h]etting currents than what could be covered in a small subsection of an article on switches.

Finally, there are apparently physically unrelated, but otherwise similar topics like cathodic or anodic protection. They would belong into a "See also" section in an article on w[h]etting currents, but could hardly be mentioned in the switch article.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The only other way out of this situation would be to undo the merge with Switch restoring the Wetting current article, such as it was, and then merging this article into that one (as it has a little more detail) and redirect. This would have the practical effect of changing the spellings but would it technically be breaching WP:ENGVAR? I believe this is more or less where we started. The only down side is that Wtshymanski who merged the article with Switch in the first place would simply remerge them as he has already decided that they should be merged. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for him, but I believe he would no longer do that. While he preferred the merge into switch, this was before he learned about the other applications of wetting currents and apparently also before he became aware of the difference between just copying over some stuff (loosing the information on the original contributors) and moving an article (maintaining the edit history), and therefore he misinterpreted my motivation to revert the redirection (or perhaps I did not made it clear enough in the first place because erroneously I thought it was obvious, anyway). But I think we have long cleared this up and he already agreed with or even proposed a merge into wetting current here: [2]. Given the earlier and longer edit history under wetting current than under whetting current, it may be even better to merge rather than to move/rename.

I don't think it would break WP:ENGVAR because I don't see it applying here at all. But if it would, it would be the other way around. The old wetting current article used the h-less-spelling variant, the switch article section uses it as well, whereas whetting current has been switched back and forth between both spelling variants several times in its very short time since incarnation, so it never was stable. However we turn it, it all points to moving or merging to wetting current...

If someone objects, I would be interested into ideas, where else to put the wetting current-related information not related to switches (as described further up). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly favour losing the "h" and, like you, don't see this as an ENGVAR issue - I don't even know which is claimed to use the "h".

As for switches, then I've never heard the term applied to switches specifically - switches are slow-moving and have plenty of force behind them. It's much more significant for relays (light contact force, maybe high speed) and also situations like telephony where there are fixed contacts with a potential long-term oxidation problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge Proposal

It would be impossible to merge the articles as there is no article at the target to merge with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I B Wright (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this comment applies to a previous merge proposal with Wetting current. It predates the current proposal to merge with Switch. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you still propose the merge to switch or have you changed your mind to support the move or merge to wetting current (as I understood you in the RM discussion above)? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I support and have always felt that 'wetting' is the spelling in the most universal use in both British and American English usage. As for how it is achieived, as long as we don't break any rules, I'm ambivalent. If it is decided to maintain Wetting current as a separate article then I shall naturally bow to the majority and remove the merge tags - if someone doesn't beat me to it. I note that there has been no support at Talk:Switch so far anyway. 86.159.159.194 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to avoid confusion, the outcome of the discussuion further above was to move whetting current over wetting current keeping its older edit history intact. So, basically, this merge proposal is closed as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wet vs Whet

Whet Etymology (from Wiktionary.org) From Middle English whetten, from Old English hwettan (“to whet, sharpen, incite, encourage”), from Proto-Germanic *hwatjaną (“to incite, sharpen”), from Proto-Indo-European *kʷēd- (“sharp”). Cognate with Dutch wetten (“to whet, sharpen”), German wetzen (“to whet, sharpen”), Icelandic hvetja (“to whet, encourage, catalyze”) Danish dialectal hvæde (“to whet”).

Wet Etymology (from Wiktionary.org) From Middle English wett (“wet, moistened”), past participle of Middle English weten (“to wet”), from Old English wǣtan (“to wet, moisten, water”), from Proto-Germanic *wētaną (“to water, wet”), from Proto-Indo-European *wed-, *wod- (“wet”), *wódr̥ (“water”). Cognate with Scots weit, wete (“to wet”), Icelandic væta (“to wet”). Compare also Middle English weet (“wet”), from Old English wǣt (“wet, moist, rainy”), from Proto-Germanic *wētaz (“wet, moist”), related to Scots weit, weet, wat (“wet”), North Frisian wiat, weet, wäit (“wet”), Saterland Frisian wäit (“wet”), West Frisian wiet (“wet”), Swedish våt (“wet”), Norwegian våt (“wet”), Danish våd (“wet”), Faroese vátur (“wet”), Icelandic votur (“wet”).

The conclusion is that Wet and Whet are not simply American and British variations of the same word, but these two words are completely different. Wet originated from an association with WATER, while Whet originated from sharpen, excite, energize, et. al.

Even though "Wetting Current" is the prevalent term used today, it is nonetheless incorrect based on the etymological history of these two words. It would be proper and correct to at least include this historical context within the Wetting Current article. Based on the etymological history of "wet" and "whet", the correct term is "Whetting Current." Whetting Current is current that is used to "excite or stimulate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.137.0 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

One added comment: There are a number of words that are spelled differently in UK and US English [[3]]. These variants all have the same Etymology, while Wet and Whet have completely different Etymologies, because they are indeed different words that just happen to be spelled quite similarly. All of the earlier discussions about the British vs American spellings of wet are misspoken. These are two distinctively different words with different etymological histories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.243.137.0 (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the old spelling variant "whetting current" should be mentioned as well, but we should not attempt to give explanations why it is no longer used. That would be original research (unless we find a source discussing this explicitly). Let's just describe what "is", not "why" it might be this way and not in another. The fact, that the spelling variant "whetting current" can be found in some archaic sources is undisputable, and we are not doing our readers a service if we try to suppress this information. Trying to determine, however, what might be more "correct" (and at what point in time) is not our primary business here. The reason, why the article is positioned under "wetting current" is that this is the dominant spelling variant today (regardless of any AE/BE issues).

In general, while I see that the term might be etymologically related to the verb "whet" (from sharpen, exciting, energizing), on a more physical level the same might apply to "wet" as well (in a sense of to net, to saturate, but not with water, but with surface electrons), thereby invalidating your attempt of giving an explanation of what is more correct than the other.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are these archaic sources in which it's found? I have most of the obvious archaic sources (Rankin Kennedy et al) and I can't see it in any of those. I don't think it's archaic at all, I think it's a confused error. If it's a common(ish) one, then we should record that. But record it as a common error, not archaic. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

First reference given in "Capacitor Discharge Solution" does not support paragraph.

The cited "Relay Contact Life" only talks about the use of an RC circuit for protecting a contact from arcing, when the switch is opened. Nothing about promoting wetting current when the switch is closed.:::: KazKylheku (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Is "wetting current" physically accurate, or is there actually a voltage involved?

Let's say that there is a claim that a certain specific current value is required, like 1 microampere, to break through the film resistance of a dry contact. Quite literally, what that means is that if we configure a ideal (or very stiff) current source for 1 microampere, it should force the contact to conduct. But doesn't that happen due to a specific voltage building up across the film; that film's breakdown voltage? Then, suppose we instead configure the current source for 0.5 microamperes, which is only half of the claimed wetting current. Under this condition, the contact should not conduct due to the film not being broken. But the current source will try hard to push that 0.5 microamperes through, by raising the voltage applied to the stubborn interface. Won't that eventually break through? Current as being the parameter (a narrow around a specific current value) doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. :::: KazKylheku (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not specifically a value for wetting current, but for wetting current density. The actual current needed will depend on the area of the contact (and a whole lot more). Although for the same contact, or even mechanically similar contacts making over the same areas, then this will be the same current for each.

Wetting current is also typically about multiple contact makings through the same contact points, i.e. the same relay opening and closing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)