Talk:X-ray image intensifier

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The two are not equivalent.  The first is a component of many systems which converts and amplifies an x-ray signal into an optical one.  Many C-arms are XRII-based, but many are becoming flat-panel based now too.  Most of the article talks about the application of a C-arm and different modalities (like fluoroscopy), and isn't really really relevant to XRIIs.
--Fuzzball! (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: XRII vs C-arm

message: I understand your point of view and what you are saying, however this piece of equipment is still referred to as an II in many hospitals.  Ok this is referring to the working part inside the machine and the actual 'nickname' for the machine is a C-arm, however I still think the artical is valid and useful (especially for radiographers) who want to come to wiki to find out more information... not less!  I like what you have added to the start of the page but I think wiping out the other information is pointless.  The artical is titled 'X-ray image intensifier' and that is what its about! Heather 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are propagating a common error though, and the nickname of 'X-ray image intensifier' to refer to the whole machine may only be local to the UK.  I have not heard it in North America.  The correct thing to do is to create a separate page with the correct name (such as C-arm) and add a redirect at the top of the page with an explanation.  Either that, or make it clear in the subsection that these are common uses or applications of the XRII.  (e.g. Common used to refer to ___)  "X-ray" is a common nickname for radiograph, but I wouldn't want to see the primary page focusing on radiographs rather than the distinct form of electromagnetic radiation that it is.    I never meant to say that your additions were of no importance, just that they are misfiled.  Fuzzball! (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to the page

message: I see your point.  I still think the page is entitled according to what the machine does. X-ray image intensifier is the definition of what the machine does.  It is just shortened to Image intensifier or II.  I think C-arm is just as much a nickname.  The machine as a whole encompasses the data programs and the processing.  It is a bit complicated as many people use different phrases.  As long as you can type that in and get to the right page thats what counts. I know you can't please everyone (including myself), Im just trying to be accurate. Heather 13:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Herein lies what I am worried about.  The XRII really does just refer to the component that converts x rays to light and amplifies the signal.  Without an x-ray source, it is quite useless.  Without a screen (to produce radiographs) or a video camera (for fluoroscopy) you'd be forced to stick your head at the end and look at the light coming through to see any sort of picture, again making it pretty useless.  An image intensifier is also a different (but related) beast that simply detects (typically visible or infrared) light and amplifies the signal into lots of visible light.  The technology is heavily used for night vision goggles.  It was only when they found the right phosphors to convert x rays into visible light that XRII were born (and yes they need that extra phosphor otherwise they are just IIs).  What you have written on the page is a common misconception, but still quite wrong.  XRII are not C-arms and are not fluoroscopes, just as "x-rays" are not radiographs, as much as people colloquially use the term.  It is merely a short form for "x-ray image".  If Wikipedia is truly a place to educate, then you must give people the truth and not propagate common misconceptions.  However, I am not going to start an edit war of this and leave it to you.  Fuzzball! (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I am sorry if I came across as patronizing.  It was not my intention.  I do not doubt your qualification or skills as a radiographer.  I refer to the specific component as an XRII because that is what I have been taught, and I haven't found anything that contradicts it.  Here is an article from RSNA RadioGraphics with a similar description.  Figure 1 in the article depicts the components and is probably more the type of figure the wiki page should have.  Here is an example of a machine (under fluoroscopy) from Philips similar to the picture currently on the page.  The Philips refers to it as a C-arm in the page.  Here is a link to one of their mobile C-arms.  If you have any official literature or manufacturer brochure that refers to them as x-ray image intensifiers, I would be very interested in it.  I do not say this in sarcasm or malice - I would like to know if what I have learned is incorrect.  Thanks.  Fuzzball! (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response