:Technically wrong, as it is in every other language, but not absolutely wrong since it is the popular usage. Revolutio Industrialis appears in hitherto red links all over vicipaedia and has the advantage of being instantly recognisable. Conversio and commutatio might be more accurate, but I don't think Revolutio ought to be completely disallowed, or pedantry get too much in the way of producing a useful encyclopaedia. By the way, I am just translating this article from the one in Spanish Wikipaedia. Please help me out and continue it if you've got time! Its a bit more concise than the English one. [[Specialis:Conlationes/184.108.40.206|220.127.116.11]] 12:36, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::Recognizable to who? A Latin reader, or a Romance one? This is after all a latin encyclopedia....right?
:::It's Latin, yes, but it's also an encyclopedia, which means not to make up new facts, even if we don't like the existing ones. 'Conversio industrialis' doesn't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia, while there's at least a couple instances of '[http://books.google.com/books?q=%22revolutio+industrialis%22 revolutio industrialis]' (e.g. "''Industrialis revolutio'', quae circa medium saeculi XVIII coepit, adscribi debet inventioni perfectiorum instrumentorum in rebus arte factis.") Now, if a term of better Latinity has been in use, then by all means we could change it; but otherwise, it's kind of like renaming civil wars because they're uncivil. —[[Usor:Mycēs|Mucius Tever]] 19:45, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
::When languages borrow terms from other languages they often take a secondary meaning as the primary meaning of the borrowing, so technically it is not wrong in spanish english etc. But in this case the term comes from Latin..
::If a conversio or rerum commutatio is a genuine revolutio, by all means it should be called that; but the only revolutio conceivable in this instance is one in which we return to a preindustrial economy.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] 16:41, 15 Augusti 2009 (UTC)