Talk:Back-of-the-envelope calculation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would an envelope so often be at hand? Shouldn't it be called something like napkin-face? Or did this term originate in offices? [not that they don't have notepads.] lysdexia 17:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a valid term, that's often used (at least it is where I am). You can't dispute an article because you just don't like the phrase it's describing. jguk 22:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's because of all the junk mail you get, you always have a useless envelope around.

If it's really due to Enrico Fermi, then it presumably originated in a university environment.--Runcorn 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back of the Napkin

There's an article (stub) talking about back of the napkin calculations. I think these should be put into one article somehow. 74.99.19.249 14:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Chris

[edit] Merge?

Clearly, this should be merged with Back-of-the-envelope-calculations as it deals with the same subject. I favour turning this article into the redirect, as people usually use the longer phrase. --Runcorn 19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but maybe Back-of-the-envelope calculation would be a better title (removing the hyphen between "envelope" and "calculation", and dropping the plural "s" in accordance with the MOS). Wmahan. 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment regarding "s" and hyphens, but otherwise it's catch-as-catch-can. - DavidWBrooks 22:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wmahan too. --Runcorn 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nearest and nearest available

I restored "available". The nearest piece of paper may not be available. It may be an important document, not to be scribbled on.--Runcorn 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it still strikes me as an unnecessary word - there's no need to cover every possibility in a sentence lik that; we wouldn't say "nearest available piece of paper, parchment or other material capable of holding ink or other writing substance" - but I'm sure we both agree it's not worth an edit war, so I won't re-revert. - DavidWBrooks 22:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)