This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking 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.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking articles
This page has many incoming links. Some sort of page is needed here in Wikipedia. If you copy it to Wiktionary, please also leave it here. This sort of thing happened with page Vial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this transwiki. Right now this is just a disambig page, which I'm cool with. Why don't we just retag it as a disambig and be done with it? Wizard191 (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on adding this to Wikionary but I do believe that the article needs to continue to exist in Wikipedia. Some of the more general information relevant to a limited description of what a plasma torch is should be copied from the articles that are linked from this page and a short article should be created here.Kinemaτ 19:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a lot more information to this page. Rudolfensis (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The externally hosted image is of marginal quality, is not freely licensed, and gives little useful context. I'm curious about the reasons for including a link to it when there are a number of much better images on Commons. Feezo(send a signal | watch the sky) 00:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you replace it with one of these "better images"? Perhaps you can suggest one. The image was from a scientific journal. Rudolfensis (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]