Ok, so after a bit more thought about this, I think parallel is a terrible term. Because we’re not dealing with parallels here, we’re dealing with axis that are perpendicular to each other.
How about 90-ing?
@ThantiK We’re not talking about the axes, which should be perpendicular to one another, we’re talking about the platform, which needs to be made parallel to the X and Y axes (which should, in turn, be perpendicular to one another and to Z).
@ThantiK true but we are ensuring the tip of the nozzle remains equidistant from the bed surface in movements both x and y. this by definition is a parallel movement. the nozzle should move in a plane parallel to the print surface.
@ThantiK
I think we’re talking about making the plane of the bed and the X/Y plane of movement parallel.
@Whosa_whatsis , I like that “square” means to get the whole machine set up right, not just capable of successfully creating some output of unspecified quality. However, for the very common task of making the bed parallel to the plane of the X and Y axes, “square” is modifiable. We can ask whether the bed is square to the axes. While this is a corruption of the word square, it is not an uncommon usage. I’ll concede that making the bed parallel may be more useful to the specific task required to get a successful first layer, though a noob will ask “parallel to what?” At least the noob won’t throw a bubble level on it and call it done.
I’m OK with either square or parallel being used here, really. Both introduce to the beginner what needs to be done without laying a trap for them, even though they will probably need a little more help to get there. At least they’ll know they need help.
I’m certainly more comfortable with “square” rather than parallel. Parallel isn’t immediately obvious as to what you’re talking about. I certainly didn’t immediately think that you were discussing a parallel 3D plane of head movement in relation to the bed. Square is also a very commonly used term in construction and many other industries so I think people would pick up on it quickly.
@Dale_Dunn At least if they ask “parallel to what?” they’re asking the right question, which is not the case with any of the other options. This includes square, if you assume the more common usage meaning perpendicular, and of course, square is also confusing because its most common use refers to the shape of most printer platforms.
I can’t agree that “square” is confusing. It’s pretty common vernacular.
@ThantiK see my numerous comments about platform shape (the most common usage of the term) and parallel vs. perpendicular.
I’ve seen your comments, I disagree with them. And no, it’s not an uncommon usage of the term. There are FAR more people in the world building houses, etc that use the term square to mean exactly what you’re describing. You simply say “You need to make sure your axis are square(ed up)” and everyone will know exactly what you are saying. Nobody is ever going to ever think that because they’re using a delta, or because they’re using a rectangular printer, that it’s referring to the shape of the printer.
We’re debating some nebulous moron, and the inability to point to an online image or draw a picture with pen and paper. 
@ThantiK Squaring the axes is important, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about insuring that the bed is parallel to the X and Y axes.
@ThantiK again, we’re not talking about the axes here. I agree that “square” should be used for that, and I use that terminology (and that tool) for that purpose all the time. We’re talking about the platform, which needs to be made parallel to things, not perpendicular to them.
@John_Davis , I’m aware. The bed needs to be squared in relation to everything else. It makes just as much (if not more) sense than parallel, because your bed might not move in the X or Y direction. Maybe it only moves in Z. It needs to be square to the rest of the printer. This applies to both the axis of motion, and the bed itself.
@ThantiK your bed doesn’t have to move. All motion of the printer should be considered as motion of the extruder relative to the platform, regardless of which part is actually moving. We’re just talking about making sure that that motion, within a layer, is along an X/Y plane to which the platform is parallel.
@ThantiK It doesn’t matter if the bed moves. The plane of the bed must be parallel to the X and Y axes. If the bed is square to Z and the X and Y axes are not, you won’t be able to print.
Shit, go look up the definition of “squaring”: To test for conformity to a desired plane, straight line, or right angle.
The bed itself would be “squared” to the rest of the machine. It’s pretty obvious what it’s referring to, and doesn’t verb an adjective.
I’d prefer tram, but apparently people don’t like that either!
I’m saying, I’m certainly not going to be going around telling people to start “paralleling” their beds.
@ThantiK I’m not sure what dictionary you’re looking at, but I’d bet that of the many definitions it has for square, the one that refers to making things perpendicular is higher than the one that refers to making this parallel, which is much less common usage and also generally not a job that a square (the tool) will be much use for. As @Ashley_Webster said, squaring the axes and making the platform parallel to them are two separate processes (I’ll add, that need to be done in a specific order), so it’s helpful to have different terms to refer to them.
@ThantiK Lol, fair enough. As long as we’re all in agreement about NOT using level. 