Talk:Hiduminium

Circular Redirects

There are several circular redirects in the page. In the first sentence R.R. alloys is a wikilink, yet is just redirects back to this page. Similarly, High Duty Alloys Ltd is wikilinked, yet it just takes the reader further down the same article. This needs to be corrected. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly why does it need to be corrected? What does it break? MediaWiki is robust against such things, they don't cause a problem. They do (admittedly as something of a side effect) also trigger the relevant article name highlights.

Secondly, what's this new article to be called? There are two deliberate redirects to it, because there's a case to be made to move the main article to potentially any one of those three names. Decide which the stable canonical name is going to be first, before worrying about trivial formatting issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the fact that those names redirect to this article. That's not a problem. They just shouldn't be wikilinked in the article itself. For example, I'm reading the article, get interested in reading more about "R.R. alloys", and click the link, only to be redirect back to the same place. Just don't make it a wikilink in this article. I don't mind that searching for R.R. alloys takes me here; that's fine. Likewise, the High Duty Alloys Ltd as a redirect is fine, it just shouldn't be wikilinked within this article. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree - links in the article should not bring readers back to the same article. If you don't fix them there is a bot that will eventually come around and do so. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur, at the risk of being lumped in with Scientology again. Circular links are generally not a good idea, and should be de-linked. Just re-add them if the article is created. We all seem to agree that the Redircts pages are appropriately pointed here. - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, so what's the article to be called? There's no point in fiddling with links (potentially many of them) until that's clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest it really isn't that important what the article is called as long as all the likely names are redirects, which they seem to be at present. I would suggest leaving it where it is and just fixing the circular links in situ. - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

^^^ What Ahunt said. The article was created at this name, and the other possibilities redirect to it, so I think readers won't have a problem finding the article. If you do change the name, you can always find (ctrl-f) and add the four brackets back in. In the meantime, I think the circular links should be fixed. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) It took me awhile, but I found it! Per Help:Self link#Wikipedia-specific help: Self links are usually not recommended. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

So how do you pronounce that? 'Hi' as in 'high' + 'du' as in 'duty' + minium or 'hidu' like 'Hindu' without 'n' + minium? However you want? ospalh (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC) fixed typos 08:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi as in High Duty Alloys, the developers of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Its pronounced; high-due-mini-yum - from High Duty Aluminium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tons per square inch

is not a unit of stress. beyond that "Ton" is also an ill-defined unit of weight77.13.122.34 (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Archaic perhaps, but it's contemporary with the sources, far from a "crappy unit" and nor is a ton ill-defined within this context. Convert it by all means, but the original unit should remain preserved, as that from the canon source. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"Ton" is a unit of mass, not of force an therefore "mass per area" is not a measure of material strength. If the original sources do the same their validity should be questioned as well! 77.13.240.123 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

In that period, it was commonly a unit of force as well as a unit of mass. Archaically it's even a measure of volume. Some understanding of context is needed to make use of it, but there's no confusion here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This is getting stupid. Do with your encyclopidia what you want! 77.11.204.82 (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

'Tons per square inch' was a perfectly valid engineering way of measuring force and stress in the UK until the UK adopted the SI Units.

The 'tons' BTW would have been long tons - 2,240 lbs. The Imperial unit of mass was the slug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.84 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@95.149.55.84 seven years later, this is still in a unit i dont really understand, and even face difficulty converting as I dont know what "ton" we talk about. Is it so difficult to make this comparable with todays materials by giving values in MPa ? 46.15.231.17 (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)