Talk:Kelvin scale

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Kelvin + scale; pure SoP. bd2412 T 16:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete. But for one thing, we need to update Kelvin to be either the lemma form or an alternative form of kelvin. --WikiTiki89 16:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought the etymological priority went to Kelvin scale and that Kelvin is a reduced form of that. Thus we would need both as there was nothing in the name Kelvin itself that determined this meaning at the time of coinage. I thought I'd read that argument in some recent discussion in this very forum. Not only that, but “Kelvin scale”, in OneLook Dictionary Search. shows several glossaries and AHD, Collins, WordNet, and Vocabulary.com having the term. Keep DCDuring TALK 19:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But is that the case? We would need to RFV it as being attested before kelvin or Kelvin. --WikiTiki89 19:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't even have the supposed component sense of Kelvin at [[Kelvin#English]]. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@ BD: Why isn't this a "non-parseable word used to identify a specific thing, as with Grévy's zebra and Bose-Einstein condensate." See #Pauli exclusion principle or Talk:Pauli exclusion principle. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wikitiki: You are joking, right? Why don't you or BD attest to Kelvin being used as it would have to be for this to be SoP?

Do you really think that the first use of the concept was somebody putting a number next to the letter "k" or "K" or the word Kelvin", expecting readers to understand the meaning "absolute zero-based scale"? The existence of dictionary entries would seem to shift the burden of proof a little bit, unless we would like to simply dismiss their expertise as professional lexicographers for purposes of these little discussions. I wouldn't think we would be so arrogant as to do so. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How does this differ from Grévy's zebra and Bose-Einstein condensate? There is no equivalent to saying degrees Grévy or degrees Bose-Einstein. The Kelvin scale measures units, which are called kelvins. There is no unit called a Grévy for which the collecting measure of the units adds up to a zebra. bd2412 T 22:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since 1968 the unit has been the kelvin. Before that it was degree Kelvin, commencing shortly after Kelvin's death. Apparently Kelvin scale is just an honorific name for the absolute scale, which w:William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin himself called Thomson's absolute scale. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@DCDuring: you may be thinking of the "in a jiffy" test. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, though history has a bearing on this. I think it's a new principle: the Pauli inclusion principle. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been convinced. Keep. --WikiTiki89 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not sure this is a sum of parts. To me, it seems that "Kelvin scale" is a scale named after Kelvin. I assume the SOP argument rests of Kelvin ("Alternative capitalization of kelvin"), and thus kelvin ("base unit of thermodynamic temperature"). If the SOP argument rests on Kelvin ("A surname​."), it is plain wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole other argument to be made based on the official definitions of "degree Kelvin" and "kelvin" and of the scale itself. See w:Kelvin, especially w:Kelvin#Usage conventions. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Should be kept, listed by Oxford. I'm not sure about the plural though, I doubt that there is one. Donnanz (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Kept. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)