User talk:Heron/2015

Proposed deletion of CAMiLEON

The article CAMiLEON has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hotel de Paris, Cromer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Automobile Association. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Current intensity

Your claim at the electric current article [1] that the phrase current intensity is archaic is not agreed by gbooks, scholar, or IEEE Xplore. SpinningSpark 19:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

My claim was based on personal experience backed up by a cursory Google Search. I will see if I can do better. However, the previous claim that "current intensity" is "frequently used" was also unsourced, so I request that you don't revert to that until we have some evidence. --Heron (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to revert you at all. I agree with your experience, I don't use the phrase, my colleagues don't use the phrase, and, as far as I recall, I don't remember any lecturer at uni using the phrase. Just saying, there are contemporary sources still using it. More or less random sample: [2][3][4]. SpinningSpark 08:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find a citation to back up my 'archaic' claim so I removed it and replace it with a more moderate claim. Perhaps the longer form is not archaic at all, just more academic. --Heron (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)