Once again, this name falls into the same problem that eater 6 did: it's a name that's not in common use and that gives a numerical designation to an arbitrary object within a relatively broad category. Like Dave Greene said, this is precisely why the trend of naming objects "eater 1" "eater 2" etc. died out. Where are we going to move it to, though? Ian07 (talk) 13:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- We might get away with "p5 pipsquirter" in this case. Names that are just descriptions of functionality are a little bit harder to argue with, whereas "pipsquirter 3" sounds like it might be a p3 pipsquirter -- not that those are possible, but what about if we made it as far as "pipsquirter 5"?
- It's a little bit speculative that this object is useful enough to need a name. It can't work in a standard bouncer reaction, for example, because the pip doesn't actually get squirted quite far enough away from the oscillator. But it's small and high-clearance enough that a use might turn up. Dvgrn (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Entity Valkyrie, moving this page to “pipsquirter 5” was a fairly big step in the opposite direction from what I was suggesting. The note above was trying to say that “pipsquirter 5” would be a particularly bad (potentially confusing) name. Try reading everything two or three times before saving any changes, please — or at least after saving them! A lot of your errors seem unnecessary. In this case you left the name in the actual text as “pipsquirter 3” — though maybe you would have fixed that eventually if I hadn’t interfered! Dvgrn (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)