Talk:seismic performance

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

base isolation, seismic load and seismic performance

To me, as a building design professional, these appear to be clearly sum-of-parts, but perhaps I am too close to the subject. What do others think? (And if we do keep them, the wording needs tweaking for clarity.) --Enginear 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They look specialized enough to warrant inclusion to me. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

They do to me too.Lucifer 21:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, except possibly "base isolation", which seems to become opaque because of dropping seismic from seismic base isolation. The others seem quite transparent once a context of use is suggested. DCDuring TALK 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to have to say keep to all. I wouldn't understand any of the given meanings of these terms looking at our entries for their constituent parts. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep all, per Mr. Laurent's point. bd2412 T 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kept. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)