![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
how is this different from "condensing"? -- Tarquin 18:18 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
Good question, they both imply "enter the liquid state". Webster does not mention that liquefy implies that it should be from the gas state, though. User:Egil
Oxford English Dictionary: 'Liquefaction'. 'Liquification' does not have an entry, although it does sound more natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.106 ( talk) 09:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
To whomever that moved from liquefy to liquify:
liquefy is the preferred variant in both Concise Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Please undo. [[User:Egil]
Again, rename it to liquefy. There is no reason to wait. See Egil's comment.
Can we merge this to some article? This is just a dictionary entry and doesn't seem to expand well in the future either. Any idea? -- Taku 04:25 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
Can we move liquefaction to its own article as it pertains to earthquakes and quicksand?
shall we merge this into Liquefaction now that it's a disambiguation page too? Ungtss 17:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oxford English Dictionary: 'Liquefaction'. 'Liquification' does not have an entry, although it does sound more natural. 145.116.1.106 ( talk) 09:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Liquefaction. -- IRP ☎ 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
{{movereq|Liquefaction}}
User:Iokseng
15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
A simple Google Scholar search shows both terms are definitely used, although in different contexts. At least one author draws a distinction between the two. I've had trouble finding any reliable sources that explicitly address the subject...Any thoughts? Scientific29 ( talk) 09:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
These two edits [1] removed the refs, why? Widefox; talk 10:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit [2] removed the blender section, which has now been linked anyhow. If it is correct to include in the broadconcept (which I think it is), it should not be in the hatnote and the section could/should be included. I put the section back. Widefox; talk 19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
RuneMan3, regarding this, what part of WP:DAB and WP:BROADCONCEPT states that the Liquefaction page should be a WP:Disambiguation page? It seems quite clear to me that it should be a broad-concept article, as it was before you turned it into a WP:Disambiguation page. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
how is this different from "condensing"? -- Tarquin 18:18 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)
Good question, they both imply "enter the liquid state". Webster does not mention that liquefy implies that it should be from the gas state, though. User:Egil
Oxford English Dictionary: 'Liquefaction'. 'Liquification' does not have an entry, although it does sound more natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.106 ( talk) 09:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
To whomever that moved from liquefy to liquify:
liquefy is the preferred variant in both Concise Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Please undo. [[User:Egil]
Again, rename it to liquefy. There is no reason to wait. See Egil's comment.
Can we merge this to some article? This is just a dictionary entry and doesn't seem to expand well in the future either. Any idea? -- Taku 04:25 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
Can we move liquefaction to its own article as it pertains to earthquakes and quicksand?
shall we merge this into Liquefaction now that it's a disambiguation page too? Ungtss 17:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oxford English Dictionary: 'Liquefaction'. 'Liquification' does not have an entry, although it does sound more natural. 145.116.1.106 ( talk) 09:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Liquefaction. -- IRP ☎ 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
{{movereq|Liquefaction}}
User:Iokseng
15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
A simple Google Scholar search shows both terms are definitely used, although in different contexts. At least one author draws a distinction between the two. I've had trouble finding any reliable sources that explicitly address the subject...Any thoughts? Scientific29 ( talk) 09:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
These two edits [1] removed the refs, why? Widefox; talk 10:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit [2] removed the blender section, which has now been linked anyhow. If it is correct to include in the broadconcept (which I think it is), it should not be in the hatnote and the section could/should be included. I put the section back. Widefox; talk 19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
RuneMan3, regarding this, what part of WP:DAB and WP:BROADCONCEPT states that the Liquefaction page should be a WP:Disambiguation page? It seems quite clear to me that it should be a broad-concept article, as it was before you turned it into a WP:Disambiguation page. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
References