Talk:Quality (disambiguation)

message: The first meaning is technical, the second practical, the third artistic and the fourth metaphysical. All four meanings, and therefore the meaning of quality, are synonymous with good.
Utter rubbish. I can say that a beer has an overbearing astringent quality. The word 'quality' is not synonomous with 'good' in that sentence. Hence, Wikipedia is wrong in this case.
On top of that, 'quality' doesn't even belong in something calling itself an 'encyclopedia'. It belongs in a dictionary. Obviously, the Wikipedians have put it here so that they can honestly say that Wikipedia contains quality articles (ha ha!).
:I think it's not so bad now. Although as a whole the article needs work. It is clearly useful in the context of Quality as a focus for business, engineering, public work and a whole host of other human activities. But see the next section's suggestion ... Matt Whyndham 17:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect "in general". Your comment only relates to meaning #1. Gabriel Kielland 13:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: "Quality," the abstract concept, and "quality control" are not the same thing. Should Category:Quality be renamed to reflect this, and should this page be removed from that category? Please respond on my talk page, thanks... Paul 04:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think the section "[Quality] in organizations" should be merged into either Quality control or Quality management. The page Quality should deal with the philosophical concept of quality. A disambiguation page should be set up to direct readers interested in the engineering concept of quality to those other pages. --  The Photon 02:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality/Quality control

message: Most of these techniques and concepts are controversial to one degree or another, since there are two opposing schools of thought with regard to quality. One school subscribes to a statistical approach to quality, measuring variation and then taking corrective action. The other school subscribes to a more organic approach, arguing that one should "design in quality" rather than trying to "test in quality".
There is a difference between quality of design and the quality of production. Six Sigma and other quality control methods use statistical methodology and sampling to determine how consistently a product is being produced and offers a methodology to correct deviations. QC methods not deal with product design. No matter how well designed an item is, if it is being manufactured poorly it will not work with a high degree of reliability. Conversely, no matter how consistently and uniformly a poor design is produced, good production methods cannot improve on a poor design. The above paragraph makes no sense and does not belong in the article. TDC 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *The sentence is poorly written, but obviously whoever wrote it is describing Deming vs. Six  Sigma. Seems as though something needs to be included along that line. Just better written. Brimba 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Design vs Mfg

message: (moved here from the top to leave the contents box prominent. Don't know the provenance of the following. Matt Whyndham 16:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Property and quality 

message: I'm suprised to not see more on this page about Rob Pirsig's concept of quality. The potential implications of the concept laid out in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance are fascinating at least and ground breaking at best. And since he discovered the concept through the very problem of *being unable to define quality* in the first place, its greater relevence to this page is even more apparent.
Does anyone agree with me here or am I way off track? Mythiran 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rob Pirsig's Quality 

message: This page seemed to have much too much content for a typical disambiguation page. I think the idea of merging other articles into it (specifically the one about physics quality) came from this. So I have tried to clean up this page to make it more streamlined. Partly this required moving content from this page to the physics page, and vice-versa. Hopefully this makes it easier to use and clear that all the various meanings of quality which seem to have their place deserve more thorough treatment in other articles.
Dhollm (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduction of clutter