Talk:Proof

message: What about: "Scotch whisky is normally distilled twice to around 130 or 140 proof"? - User:Olivier 06:48, 19 September 2002‎ (UTC)
We don't need to list every definition, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
However, if there is (or could be) a Wikipedia article on this concept (I don't know) and you know what it is (or should be) called (I don't), then go ahead and add it.
— Toby 08:36 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)
I was asking because I don't know what this one is. I assume it is a unit in some system, and could be included somewhere in a list of units. So if anyone knows, that would be helpful. - User:Olivier 08:53, 19 September 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Whisky

message: Bulletproof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.91.64 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulletproof 

message: I got this page hoping to find something about proofs used in printing. I think they're stuff sent back to an author to check that it's okay before printing it. From wiktionary:proof: "(printing): A trial impression, as from type, taken for correction or examination; -- called also proof sheet." I thought this might be worth at least part of a Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure on the terminology and I can't be bothered finding out about it any more.—Vadmium 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try adding to proofreading or galley proof --Henrygb 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printing 

message: Should this page have a link to, presumably, another page, discussing photographic proofs?
The concept is surely similar to an Artist's proof, but it strikes me as sufficiently different to warrant its own mention, if not its own page.
Being a fairly casual wikipedia editor, though, I figure I'd like input from others on whether or not this deserves a separate page.  Thoughts?
I suppose there are actually several possible meanings here, as well:
* Proof that something acts and/or happened in a particular way (e.g. a "photo finish" in horse-racing);
* a proof print (a print made to show what an image might look like), which is what I was getting at above.
* A digital "proof", similar to a proof print, but digital.
* others?
I could maybe do some research and make a page for this, and link it in.  Thoughts from others would be welcome, first, though.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindes (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographic proof? 

message: There is a bit of an edit war going on; radical changes to the page should be discussed here (although some discussion is going on at Talk:Proof (truth)). -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a technical Wikipedia question, is an edit war considered to have begun when the first edit is made, or when it is reverted?  I just want to know who should bear the blame for escalating things to a "war" here.  --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has now been moved below. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: It didn't quite pan out, but I think Toby Bartels was on to a good thing by creating some indented structure.
I've also added some pictures to help better identify the groupings, and hopefully speed navigation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those images have been deleted, perhaps wisely. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation 

message: I moved the entries that appeared not to be ambiguous with "proof" to the See also section, as partial title matches (WP:D#Partial title matches). Other entries moved to the "See also" section could probably be deleted instead (e.g., Argument, Evidence), unless there is some reason to think that readers seeking those articles will enter "proof" in the search box. If there's a need for a list of articles related to arguments, evidence, proof, theorems, etc., they should be collected in a list article instead, and that article linked from "See also".
I also replaced "Evidence for the truth of a proposition or statement – see Proof (truth) for an overview" with "* Proof (truth), sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition", as per the disambiguation page style guidelines (WP:MOSDAB). 
I also formatted the entry for Proof (2004 TV series) by the style guidelines.
I also removed blue links from the descriptions of entries that already had a blue link as the entry link.
I also simplified the descriptions of the songs.
I should have removed the pipe link from Prepress proofing, but overlooked it, also per the style guidelines.
In the new arrangement, readers looking for something that could reasonably have been sought as "proof" will find it in the main list, and the rest of the slightly related topics can be found in the See also section.
-- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I like Proof (truth). I have decided not to join the disambiguation wikiproject, which may be time well spent. For information about that project let me indirect you to the hatnote at Disambiguation (disambiguation) ;-)
I don't see the big picture clearly so I merely offer these tidbits FYI.
*We have a neighboring dab page Proofing.
*We have both Prove and Proving as redirects to Evidence(!) which target provides this hat note.
: For other uses, see Evidence (disambiguation).
: "Proving" redirects here. For rest period during the fermentation of bread dough, see Proving (baking technique).
The latter is a redirect to the one spelled with "oof". --P64 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Prove and Proving should redirect here, they now do, and I've moved "Evidence" up higher in the page to compensate. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small points