Talk:Protector lock

message: Hi, I've added a one-line mention of this other use of the term. I didn't want to mess up an article that's clearly about Hobbs' lock, but Kromer's unfortunately used the same name, and is also a historically relevant and important lock design, also having a reputation for extreme difficulty in picking. I'm slightly dubious about my references. I've provided a reference to a YouTube video, which is never ideal. In this case it is a presentation by a professional locksmith given at OzSecCon, an Australian lock convention/conference, so I believe it has some main-stream value (I believe the locksmith concerned makes part of his business the opening of old, historical safes where people have lost the keys!). I have also provided a link to another company, whose website shows one of the locks; I hope this isn't inappropriately commercial. Finally, I've linked to a wiki operated by koksa.org, a German lock-picking community site; the page I've linked is a list of Kromer protector patents. I hope this is all appropriate; I thought these were rather dubious references, but mainstream writing about locks tends to be rather specialist and hard to get, by the very nature of the subject. Elemimele (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodore Kromer's protector-lock 

message: My proposed new article on Kromer's lock as above was declined by AfC reviewer User:AngusWOOF with the comments "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Protector lock. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you." and "This can be a section in protector lock for the Kromer design". I have therefore done this. In order to make sense of the situation, I've added one sentence at the top explaining that this is now a hybrid article describing two locks that happen to share a name, and splitting the material into two sections. I have left the wording of the Hobbs section identical to how it was.
I think the result makes sense, and have no issues with @AngusWOOF's suggestions, but if anyone else (, you were the last active editor...) feels strongly this is the wrong approach, then do say! I've left my draft for the moment, in case the articles need re-splitting. Elemimele (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for pinging me in on this. I think your solution works well, that is, a single article, with one major section for each of the two locks, and a one-sentence explanation at the top. My only suggestion is that you include the dates of the respective locks in that one-sentence explanation, as that would give some extra context. I will also have a closer look at your new material to see if it could benefit from any copy-editing. Mike Marchmont (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Makes sense. Done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elemimele (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice job! I didn't want to see the great material in Kromer Protector lock draft lost to the encyclopedia.  – Athaenara  ✉  07:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with draft on Kromer's lock 

message: A couple of points:
* Capitalisation. In the article, the names of the two locks are variously written as 'Protector Lock', 'Protector lock' and 'protector lock'. It would be good to standardise the use of capitals vs lower-case.
* Past or present tense? The description of the Kromer lock uses both past and present tense. For example, In design, his lock was a tumbler- or wafer-lock compared to When the correct key is inserted .... Since the lock is no longer in production, should we standardise on past tense?
 and others, what are your views?
Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: my logic was to use past tense for the design because it's no longer made, and the designing process happened in the past, while using present tense for what happens when you turn the key because plenty of examples still exist and still have keys turned in them. But of course you are right, the design of something is a characteristic that still exists, so it would also be logical to use present tense for everything that isn't a definite historical event (i.e. it was patented in 1874). It would also be good to standardise on capitals; my inclination is towards "Protector lock" because lock is a generic word, while "Protector" was, in effect, a brand-name or trade-name. There is no such thing as a "protector lock" in the sense of a "lever lock", i.e. a generic design that any manufacturer might make. Elemimele (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  , I agree with you re capitalisation. After all, we don't talk about the Ford Car or the Guardian Newspaper. I have changed the one instance of 'Protector Lock' to 'Protector lock'. I'll come back to the question of past vs present tense, although  am inclined to go with what you already have in place. Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some questions relating to copy editing