Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
Once more, then i'll (probably) shut up about this:

No!
You should translate the narrative. Not try to change the story into something you think people will want to hear, or something you think they will understand better.
It depends on the purpose of the translation. If it merely is to convert words from one language to another, you are right, but I personally do indeed think that in this case people are probably better served with a term they can immediately understand, and thus get some insight into the working of all these wonderfully complex but unknown devices, than get confused.

I am fully aware that that is a subjective approach...

Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
If Gevaert used a wick, people versed in the field of pouring emulsions may (or may not) scratch their heads, and think it odd (and it doesn't matter what they find odd: the use of the word or the use of a wick).
But they need to hear what (in this case) the film's narrative says. Nothing else.

Again, if "manufacturers DID agree on the general terms for these kind of devices, it would be rather stupid" if you 'corrected' the thing Gevaert used (according to this account of what Gevaert used) to something else he didn't, just because you want to use the "general term".
You are now blindly assuming the narration of the film is correct. It was 1954, over 50 years after these devices were used... Maybe even at Gevaert itself, they were unsure what to call this device... I do agree it is likely they used "wick", but what I actually attempt to say or ask is "is there anyone who has some historic literature to confirm the (somewhat unfamiliar but probably correct) usage of the word "wiek / wick" here..."

That is is not the same as me wanting to use the "general term"...

I "want" "scientific proof" (well, horrible term here :o)

Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
So ... still want to revise? Or translate?
I want neither, I just want confirmation of the term as used at Gevaert