Talk:Perspiration

Perspiration

Perspiration is the process. It is equal with sweating. It's not a fluid as the article suggests. Aminabzz (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Cremastra (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Perspiration → Sweat – WP:COMMONNAME, in line with sweat gland and night sweats –Tobias (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Tobiasi0 The difference is that the other two examples are never referred to as Perspiration glands (the less colloquial term would be sudoriparous glands) or Night perspiration (the less colloquial term would be nocturnal hyperhidrosis). Perspiration is more precise as "sweat" can refer to any process by which an object (not just a mammal) oozes or exudes moisture. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sweating and perspiration refer to the same process, as mentioned in the lead. There's no significant difference between the terms—'sweat' refers specifically to the fluid secreted by any sweat gland, just as 'perspiration' does. The main distinction is that 'perspiration' is less commonly used. In fact, there is no difference between the two terms except the context they are used in (1,2,3). –Tobias (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tobiasi0 I still think this needs further discussion as it relates to WP:MEDTITLE. Feel free to open a discussion by clicking the "discuss" link in your request above, and make sure to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:MED. I somewhat prefer the current name, as I think it has a more formal, encyclopedic tone. Also, it's not clear to me whether this article ought to be about "the fluid" or about "the process of excreting the fluid". "Perspiration" works for both, but with the proposed name, it would have to be either sweat (the wet stuff itself, as a collection of water and some other chemicals) or sweating (the process of making the wet stuff; Diaphoresis). As this article currently covers both (and that seems fine to me), then having a name that covers both in the same grammatical form seems convenient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that choosing a name solely based on its formal phonetic qualities to sound fancy to a layperson is neither purposeful nor encyclopedic. We have other guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME or WP:MEDTITLE, which lead to titles like 'sleepwalking' instead of 'somnambulism', 'fever' instead of 'pyrexia', and, in this context, 'sweat gland' instead of 'sudoriparous gland'. Additionally, 'sweat' makes the topic more accessable, as it's used in both everyday language and medical terminology, thus satisfying both of the previously mentioned guidelines.

Furthermore, we're not dealing with purely colloquial expression like 'poop' to refer to feces or 'tummy' for abdomen. 'Sweat' is a term that's also used in scientific contexts, as I mentioned earlier, and it's by far the most commonly used term for this subject.

As for the core topic of the article, it may need rewriting anyway, as the process of diaphoresis and the fluid 'sweat' are mixed somewhat randomly throughout the text. It would be much clearer to differentiate between the fluid and the process, rather than avoiding the issue by using a term that is imprecise for both. In this case, 'perspiration' is actually quite vague. I believe focusing on the fluid itself would be more effective, as the process of sweating depends on the fluid, much like we need saliva to start the process of salivation or tears for lacrimation, and not the other way around. –Tobias (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles are meant to use a impartial, formal WP:TONE. I think the current title does a better job of setting a formal tone.

NB that I'm not saying sweat/sweating is a bad title. I just think that the current title is a bit better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That rule refers to slang and colloquial words, and 'sweat' isn't one of them, but a standard word like "door" or "hand". With that in mind, how can an imprecise term be a bit better in your opinion? –Tobias (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Perspiration seems more encyclopedic. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  See above –Tobias (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  Does it? I don't see how. Ortizesp (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. WP:MEDTITLE says The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, and Ngrams has Sweat with a healthy lead in books.

Kowal2701 (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WhatamIdoing. The current title covers both the process of "sweating" and the liquid called "sweat". The sense of "sweating" seems to be a more encyclopedic topic, and "perspiration" is not an obscure term for this. In addition, "sweat" is often used (imprecisely) to refer to condensation, but I don't think "perspiration" has the same issue. Dekimasuよ! 09:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  That's exactly the problem. 'Perspiration' is too nonspecific for this topic, as it can refer to both the fluid and the process. The issue with 'sweat' being imprecisely associated with condensation is not a valid reason to avoid changing it, especially since there are many words with multiple meanings (like 'matter,' 'lightning,' 'heat,' 'suit') are still used, because they're just standard terms. We're focusing on the meaning relevant to this specific topic, regardless of how many other definitions exist. Additionally, I couldn't find this meaning in any dictionary. –Tobias (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Try wikt:sweat, definition 9 for the verb form: "(intransitive) To have drops of water form on (something's surface) due to moisture condensation." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh great, so let's just move stress (linguistics) to 'accent' because, clearly, 'stress' has several definitions too–physical and biological among others–what a genius idea! Shame on me for not thinking of that sooner.

  Now, seriously, can we stop ignoring each other's arguments in this discussion? I never denied that 'sweat' has multiple meanings, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s more commonly used as a standard term, and more fitting in this context, to describe the fluid or process more precisely than 'perspiration' ever could. –Tobias (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, clear COMMONNAME...--Ortizesp (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support-Sweat is the common name. Kolano123 (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.