Talk:Gauge

Comments

The Lagrangian is not neccesarily gauge invariant, the action is JeffBobFrank 01:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Merge

No, see Talk:Gauge (engineering) — Graibeard 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gauge vs. Gage

The comment about Gauge vs. Gage seems somewhat useless, given that the examples following contradict it. 70.132.201.115 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gauge (instrument) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

say food — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.125.103 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sub entries of an included article

There are many entries in Gauge (instrument) that can be called a "gauge". Most of them are not listed separately in this DAB Gauge; however, a few of them are (e.g., Wire gauge). We should be consistent. Either list them all in this DAB, or let them all be represented by the link to Gauge (instrument) . Meters (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the edit message, I strongly disagree with your removal of Feeler gauge. Why do we have disambiguation pages? So that people can disambiguate a term. It is not immediately clear what an "instrument" is, and I believe it is very wrong that readers should have to dig into multiple secondary pages to disambiguate a term when this can be easily done at the disambiguation page itself. Following the logic presented where an entry can be removed due to the topic being reachable via secondary pages, this precedent will result in many disambiguation pages being trimmed massively, and will make many disambiguation pages useless. In my opinion, it is fundamental that at least the most common types of gauges should be listed here, and a feeler gauge is a very good example of an extremely common workshop tool. Sauer202 (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]