Talk:Frost line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Renaming
From mikkalai's talk page:
- Hi Mikkalai - I was thinking it would make sense to move Frost line to Freezing depth, which is the more common term for the phenomenon. Doing so would however break the link to the page Frost line (disambiguation) that you created. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? - Thanks, MPF 09:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to disagree that "freezing depth" is a more common term. The term "frost line" is the original one and reflects the visual observation of a visible line on wells, on foundations, poles, etc. It is so common as to give rize to metaphors, listed in the disambig page. (Surely, e.g., in cosmogony ther term "frost" is meaningless by itself.) Moreover, "freezing depth" is applied not only to soil, but to water as well. "frost line" term is specific to soils. The term "frost line" is an dictiotaries.
Finally, google search gives 100x preference for "frost line", and the significant part of search results are from technical articles, not just blogs, so I conclude google reasonably reflects the preference by experts.
It is also interesting to note that the name "Frostline" is quite popular. Guess how it originated? `'mikka (t) 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- The trouble with "frost line" is that it is misleading - by analogy with snow line and tree line, I expected it (before I read the page) to mean the altitude on a mountain above which the ground is frozen. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the google excess is due to links using this meaning. "Freezing depth", by contrast, is unambiguous. 'Moreover, "freezing depth" is applied not only to soil, but to water as well' - I've no problem with that; the two factors are closely related and could very reasonably be dealt with on the same page.
- For technical use of "freezing depth", see e.g. [1].
- MPF 20:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- "The trouble with frost line": it is not misleading, it is context-dependent. Will you say that the words bug or strike or Moscow are misleading? This happens all the time. That's why wikipedia uses disambiguation pages. "Frost line" has multiple meanings because it is a "catch phrase", a good descriptor, hence its reuse.
- "...to water as well": my point was that "freezing depth" is an ambiguous term was well. While you think "the two factors are closely related", in fact they are similar only within the scope of a dictionary definition; their technical treatment is very different in terms of both analysis and applications.
- "For technical use of": I can give you a hundred technical links for "frost line" (and you can easily find them yourself), like this one: DESIGN GUIDE FOR FROST-PROTECTED SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS, Prepared for: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development So let's not start the pissing contest here.
- "I wouldn't be surprised if a lot". Be surprized: not that lot. When in argument, check your agruments. Here is another one: "freezing depth" + soil: 353 hits. "frost line" + soil : 57,300, i.e., not 100x, but 150x now.
- Finally, the terms "frost line" and "freezing depth" are not the same, and I would say that the word "line" better describes the phenomenon than "depth". In short words, "freezing depth" is the depth of the "frost line", i.e., the former is a descriptor of the latter.
