| Revision as of 04:38, 3 September 2007 editDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers477,553 edits noise reduction mess← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:48, 3 September 2007 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers496,422 edits noise reduction split pagesNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| What's up with this awkward split you're in the middle of, leaving the article history behind? Was there a discussion some place that I missed? It seems to me that if a split is agreed on, then the original article should be kept or moved. It is always improper to copy the contents of an article to a new place, leaving its history disconnected from it. In any case, I'm not so sure the split is worthwhile, since the techniques of noise reduction for audio and for images are not so different. ] 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | What's up with this awkward split you're in the middle of, leaving the article history behind? Was there a discussion some place that I missed? It seems to me that if a split is agreed on, then the original article should be kept or moved. It is always improper to copy the contents of an article to a new place, leaving its history disconnected from it. In any case, I'm not so sure the split is worthwhile, since the techniques of noise reduction for audio and for images are not so different. ] 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Is there a way to retain/move the history of the original (audio+image) noise reduction page? My intent was not to lose the history but to separate audio from image as the English was convoluted in the attempt to corral both subjects into one page. It's still convoluted in the two splits but (as you note) I'm in the middle of my plan. There was no prior discussion--I looked at the Noise reduction Talk page and found virtually nothing; nobody was having a dialogue and nobody was in the middle of edit wars. It looked like nobody was home. Next time I'll throw the idea out for discussion before I jump in and start shoveling text this way and that! ] 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:48, 3 September 2007
Dowd
Hi. I'm not sure Dowd belongs, as the reference is to existing engineers. --Epeefleche 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Epeefleche, I hadn't gathered from context that the list was to be only existing engineers. Since this is an encyclopedic entry and not a job listing, I don't see a problem with including those who've passed away.
I split the list off to its own heading and added some more famous engineers. Binksternet 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- It referred to notable engineers. Dead people are no longer engineers; hence the reference was to existing engineers. Nothing to do with a job listing -- if I'm not an engineer, and am not on the list, if that is what you are suggesting. It looks cumbersome to me the way that it is presented, but if no one else objects I won't.--Epeefleche 06:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest deleting the redlinked ones, or creating articles, as if they do not have Wiki articles they are not of note.--Epeefleche 09:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redlinks are just Wiki articles that haven't yet been written. ;^)-- Binksternet
- Often because the person is not notable. If a non-notable article is written, it is speedily deleted, resulting in a red link as well. Unless someone plans to write articles that pass the speedy delete test in the near future, I would delete the red links as lacking indicia of notability.
Am moving this to audio engineering talk page as it may interest others.--Epeefleche 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Audio restoration
Nice job working on Audio restoration. I had cut out some spammy stuff, but simply didn't have the knowledge to bring it up to quality standards. It is one thing to 'understand' the process in general, and quite another to have the level of expertise needed to add some really good content. You additions breathed some new life into the article, and I just wanted to say thanks. Pharmboy 01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the 'thank you'... ;^) Binksternet 11:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Horn loudspeaker
Ah, well, it would still be original research. We'd need a secondary source that discusses what you want to add in order for it to be properly supported. An encyclopedia rarely covers extremely new technology not yet covered in secondary sources. GlassFET 14:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
P-38 Lightning References
Hi Binksternet, your 1991 Bodie edition is exactly the same as the 2001 paperback reprint. Thanks for adding some very relevant references. FWIW Bzuk 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC).
Noise reduction mess
What's up with this awkward split you're in the middle of, leaving the article history behind? Was there a discussion some place that I missed? It seems to me that if a split is agreed on, then the original article should be kept or moved. It is always improper to copy the contents of an article to a new place, leaving its history disconnected from it. In any case, I'm not so sure the split is worthwhile, since the techniques of noise reduction for audio and for images are not so different. Dicklyon 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a way to retain/move the history of the original (audio+image) noise reduction page? My intent was not to lose the history but to separate audio from image as the English was convoluted in the attempt to corral both subjects into one page. It's still convoluted in the two splits but (as you note) I'm in the middle of my plan. There was no prior discussion--I looked at the Noise reduction Talk page and found virtually nothing; nobody was having a dialogue and nobody was in the middle of edit wars. It looked like nobody was home. Next time I'll throw the idea out for discussion before I jump in and start shoveling text this way and that! Binksternet 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)