Talk:Weld quality assurance

message: Note:  In November 2011 this article was moved from "Signature image processing" to    "Weld monitoring, testing and analysis ", and on December 24th, 2011 it was moved/renamed to "Weld quality assurance".  Please understand talk items with this in mind. North8000 (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change notes

message: Need to locate the other scientific publications that form the foundation for the technology. Need to assess whether brief mentions of SIP might be made in other welding-related articles. Tony 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need

message: There is no "image", right?  No cameras?  No 2-d arrangement of pixels whose brightness or color depends on some property of the weld? This is indeed an unfortunate mis-naming of the process, but there's nothing Wikpeida can do about it because it's the original inventor who chose to be confusing. It would be nice to have this clearly explained in the lead. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree; but even as a layperson, I'd not put such strictures on the definition of "image". They image stars via gravitons nowadays, and it's not an image in the photographic sense. Tony (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If we keep diluting the language like this, eventually we'll all be reduced to pointing and grunting. I'd like "imaging" to mean some process that eventually produces a *picture*, darn it; even if it's using deBroglie waves and tachyon interference in the flux core generators. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess context matters.  In terms of the inherent structure of what is being analyzed, it is one or two variables over time, not a matrix of data (image) One could argue that the graph of the variables vs time is an image, and that is probably what the inventor was thinking when he named his product.  That's his perogotive....he could name it "purple dinosaur" if he wants to.  What has happened is that Wikipedia has taken his chosen trad name and made it the title of the article.  If the article is to be just about his particular method, that's fine.  But if there is other similar weld analysis being done, then it probably would need a broader scope and different title. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfortunate name

message: At this time the name of the article changed from "Signature image processing" to "Weld monitoring, testing and analysis".  So all talk prior to this point refers to the previous article. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: At this point then name and scope of the article changed

message: Novaseminary nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis  Also see article edits/edit summaries for the run-up to this.  North8000 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld monitoring, testing and analysis

message: Found a piece on line about signature image processing method.  Has much info on the the attributes of the welding process that it utilizes.   I left it in just as an external link for now until we can more thoroughly absorb it. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Novaseminary just deleted it.  This article isn't going to be able to develop under such an assault.    I'll put it back in as a source. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) It doesn't belong in the EL section, so I removed it. But here it is. I'm not sure it is an RS, either, but ”absorb” at will. Novaseminary (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: May / may not qualify as an RS, but RS is a condition for fulfilling sourcing requirements, not for inclusion of a source. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished absorbing it.   It provides good foundation material for SIP and also briefly intorduces SIP, but does not explain SIP.  A good source fore certain aspects.  North8000 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I support North's handling of this rename/revamp. Nova, please do not make unilateral changes without consensus. Tony (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Last night Novaseminary gutted this article by removing all of the SIP material back into a separate article.  I reverted.  North8000 (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please stop your disruptive editing, and get a consensus before trying such huge changes.North8000 (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Found a bit more in depth info on signature image processing

message: As of this moment, the most cited reference in this article 
(footnote 2) is this personal website that probably has not been touched in years. This seems to be a copy of part of some version of this Army circular of which there are many versions dating back to at least WWII. At the very least, the citation needs to be corrected, and I would suggest that as is, this link is not an RS. Novaseminary (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work finding that new source.   Since the statements that the current source supports are merely that those methods exist, I think that even the current sources is sufficient.  But the upgrade tht you found and suggested is good idea. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable source 

message: One hand grenade in the recent barrage had a possible gem in it which, if one puts the article quality first, shouldn't be ignored.  Namely, a possible alternate name for the article "Weld quality assurance".  I think that that would be a good name change.  It's broad enough to encompass the three subjects currently in the title, and a shorter and more elegant title. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary personal attack aside, I'm glad you agree. Novaseminary (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was a complaint about behavior, not a personal attack. But I think one too many in the spirit of new hope. Sorry.   Good source find and good name idea! North8000 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any objection to changing the article name to "Weld quality assurance"? North8000 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only as far as I think it would be better split, with an article for Weld testing under that name (or some variant, Weld QA qould be fine) and then the bulk of this article returned to an article on the signature analysis technique specifically.  We need an article on Weld QA, that's clearly an important topic. Yet the coverage here so far is only at stub level. The signature technique is novel and seems to meet notability on its own, and we already have far better coverage on that. There's enough material for two articles, even at the current level. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  But SIP is just one company's name for for their particular method of using analysis of the voltage and current waveforms and the relationship between them  for weld monitoring. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and that's enough for an article. Signature processing isn't unique, even for welding, although I've not heard "image" applied to it before outside this article. As it stands, this article is very unbalanced between stub-level content on a huge range, with most of the article focussed on this one novel technique. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thaw was the discussed plan, that it would start that way as a way to cause the other material to get built. North8000 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

text: This is from the person who said that even the broader article which had SIP within it "Further, this seems not much more than a vehicle to promote the academic whose photo appears below and whose work is the only work profiled here".  If we were to think about reversing the three month decision process and splitting SIP back off, there would be a lot more to talk about that I'd need more time for.  But it appears that there is no opposition to the rename of THIS article to"Weld quality assurance". North8000 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern was with the promotional nature of the SIP article and the OR-inherent nature of the title (and definition) of this article. By moving this article, and I hope tightening up its lead/definition, we address my concern about this article. We really don't need to discuss the possible SIP article here now. If it meets N, it can be created/recreated/spun-off subject to any disagreeing ed taking that article to AfD (either for a straight deletion, or one of the alternatives for deletion). The question here would be how much of a SIP article should remain here, etc., per WP:SUMMARY. The promotional aspects of the SIP have been tempered somewhat, and could be fixed entirely by editing.Novaseminary (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To a technical person, the SIP section has two other problems which are not readily evident.  #1 is that the title is sort of deceptive. SIP sounds like a general technical name that their specific technology falls under, but it isn't. While the three word combination may have other random uses, but here it refers to that one particular person/company/organization's methods of weld monitoring. Second, while there is technical sounding stuff in there, it really doesn't explain even the basics on the technology. I planned to write (summarize from the sources) that part if I could get the technicla papers from Tony1, but as it turned out he no longer has them.    So, even the technical sounding stuff is really promotional rather than informative.   Also, as an aside, after a lot of searching, this looks like an idea that that sort of faded out many years ago, although I'm not sure of that.  So, while this probably meets notability and thus could be a separate article, that doesn't necessarily mean that a seperate article is the best choice.   What we decided is that it shouldn't be, but instead become a section in an article on a broader topic which is conspicuously absent from Wikipedia.  I partially condensed the SIP material, but envisioned it being further condensed, but with material possibly added with a true technical explanation if the sources became available. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would fully support cutting down, or all but eliminating, the SIP material in this article. (I already tried to do it but you reverted.) Whether SIP gets its own article, though, is based on whether it meets WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember that reversion (unless you are referring to the split) but either way I think it should be reduced. I already took out the easy-to-pick stuff.  But we should do with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.  :-)  North8000 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way I think that we're ready for the name change on this  article. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Cool. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Assurance? I'd have though "analysis". I don't see assurance here, not at this earlier part of the pipeline. Tony (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, from a process standpoint, we floated the name idea here for 7 days with no objections before doing. (probably the first thing Novaseminary and I have really agreed on in a year :-) ) It think that it was also responsive to the comments at the AFD against compound titles.  But answering your question directly, the thought is that all of those items in the previous title fall under quality assurance, including analysis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible name change

message: The substantial additions made today hav some issues that need to get fixed, but I think that they put/push us a step forward. North8000 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It had more than "some issues" and was entirely unsourced, etc. With this edit I reverted. The material is not "gone", of course. It can be seen and read here. If any of it can be salvaged, cited, and reinserted in an appropriate place rather than stuck in the lead, the world would be a better place. But Wikipedia is better off without it until then. Novaseminary (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't like it (as it was) either.   But by "push/put" us a step forward, the area covered by that material is a major area missing from this article, and getting it started, even in that problematic form, was a messy step in the right direction. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's substantial additions