Talk:Efficiency

message: I feel that the individual efficiency pages will define efficiency as they use it without us needing to make a note here.  If anyone feels differently, leave a message here or on my talk page. --Danaman5 19:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page doesn't need to fully define each usage of 'efficiency', but it should offer enough information on each that people can figure out which of the many links here is relevant to them without having to check all those pages. I think the current version of the page does a reasonable job of that. --Calair 23:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 

message: Kinda bizarre for a court to cite a disambiguation page, isn't it? If an internal link referred them to this page, they might have wished to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Ewlyahoocom 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it wasn't a dab page back then (but I don't know in which article the content they cited is now). Sandstein 04:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the current version as of 11-22-05. Mostly a dab, but it also offers a general definition, and it looks like that's what was cited. See here, and case summary here - definition of 'efficiency' seems to have been important to the case. --Calair 04:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK, now I understand: they wanted a definition and didn't have access to a dictionary -- thank gawd Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia or anything! Ewlyahoocom 06:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as a court source 

message: The "technical terms" are in the form "Subject Efficiency" or "Efficiency (Subject)", with "Efficiency" meaning the same thing in each case, but being applied to a different subject. Wiktionary only gives two definitions of Efficiency (1. The extent to which time is well used for the intended task. 2. The extent to which a resource, such as electricity, is used for the intended purpose.) and (about) the same two for Efficient (1. Making good, thorough, or careful use of resources; not consuming extra. Especially, making good use of time or energy. 2. Using a particular proportion of available energy.). It would be reasonable to give this important concept its own article. The purely disambiguation treatment makes efficiency seem like an overly-complicated nonsense-word that can mean anything to anyone. It is a solid abstract concept. However, the limit is that there doesn't seem to exist a science that deals with the general abstract concept of efficiency on its own. What do the particulars have in common? Efficiency being expressed as the ratio between useful and un-useful, the ratio of relative usefulness, (simply) error, the statistical difference between the desired and actual performance or behavior of a system or object. Erudecorp ? * 18:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract Efficiency 

message: "Inefficiency" is just the negative aspect of efficiency, and does not require a separate list of the ways in which things can be inefficient. I would merge that short piece into a new section of this article. BD2412 T 04:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections? Going once... BD2412 T 00:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is now done. BD2412 T 20:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from [[Inefficiency]]