Talk:Validation

message: This is not a disambiguation page.  Or the notice at the bottom is incomplete and therefore misleading.  It is certainly false that "This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title."  
The page is certainly useful.  And it certainly does disambiguate the word.  I wonder if the boilerplate for disambiguation pages should be rethought.
Nor does the page conform to the guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages.
a.  The page has content; it's not a "non-article page containing no content, that only refer users to other Wikipedia pages."
b.  The page title does not conform.  Perhaps it should be moved to Validation  (disambiguation).
The style guide for disambiguation pages is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages).
Some editors may wish to add pages such as:
: Validation (psychology) 
: Validation (computer security) 
: Validation (logic) 
: Validation (drug manufacture) 
: Validation (generally) 
and move the mini-articles to there.
Or  a link to Wiktionary instead of Validation (generally).
Or keep the links that are here, but reduce the discussion.  Maybe some links can be replaced with links to particular sections of the linked pages.
Or we can leave this useful page just as it is.  I'm not a hard liner.
: --Joaquin
At the very least, someone might want to fix the opening sentence, which states that validation "has several related meanings that have no meanings".  Huh?
Sculliam 01:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a disambiguation page. 

message: I don't think the distinction is currently terribly clear (especially as verification redirects to formal verification).
I've seen the following proposed as a distinction (due to William Marsh):
* verification captures the notion of correct against the specified behaviour, whereas
* validation ensures correctness against the behaviour actually needed
What do people think?
-- JTN 20:33, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
:In the context of software for medical devices, the FDA provides this clarification in their Glossary of Computerized System and Software Development Terminology: 
:*verification, software. (NBS) In general the demonstration of consistency, completeness, and correctness of the software at each stage and between each stage of the development life cycle. 
:*validation, software. (NBS) Determination of the correctness of the final program or software produced from a development project with respect to the user needs and requirements. Validation is usually accomplished by verifying each stage of the software development life cycle. 
:So verification is a process needed to finish each stage of SW development, a validated state is achieved when all stages have been completed with a satisfactory result. So much for medical devices, but is this sort of description useful for a general description of these terms?
:--Caped 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification vs validation 

message: Definitely not clear (the distinction)! 
Unfortunately, though, this is a very general problem, in the whole software industry.
(I can only talk for software, working as a quality/process engineer.)
A common distinction (endorsed e.g. by SEI CMMI) that verification proves that the way "how" we implemented something is correct (i.e. matches the requirements). OTOH, validation proves that "what" was implemented is correct (i.e. the requirements themselves match the real needs/use). (Thus, in a sense, one can say that validation is the verification of the requirements.)
Luna Kid (2006 Jan 12)
Ok,this is still confusing. Normally wikipedia is useful, but this confuses me.
In the ICT Exams I'm practicing on, Verification and Validation come up a lot.
I'm not sure if this is right, but this is what io thought i knew:
Validation-   Checking it is the correct type of data,eg a number instead of text.
Verificatiion-Checking if it maches the correct data, eg a password check.
can someone help?
-Grim- 08:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Verification vs validation 

message: As has been pointed out above (twice), we're still missing an article on emotional validation a.k.a. psychological validation a.k.a. self-validation.  This is distinction from sociological group validation, which we do have an article on (they're almost exact opposites - that one is about fitting in, this one is about standing out).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  We still need an article on emotional validation