Talk:Doctor blade

different pages, same reference- citing help needed

I haven't found how to refer to the same reference three times in the text, but with different page numbers in one case. Any advice gratefully accepted. Gravuritas (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :D There are a couple of ways to do that. My preferred method is to have 3 different references - one for each of the page numbers. And then adding the page number to each individual reference. If you use the reference templates above (click on "cite", then "template" then "book"/"web"/"magazine"/etc.), then it should be very easy to add the page numbers to your sources, simply by following the prompts. Many Featured aricles cite the same source multiple times, but with different pages each time. They have seperate references for each.--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Theres also a great site that does it all for you: be warned, sometimes it doesn't work perfectly, but it's a great shortcut if you need it.--Coin945 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this- as the page references were very similar I've bottled out and just blanket covered the 3 references by one reference to a group of pages. I'll come back to this when I need something more sophisticrated.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... sprinkling....

... the article with "citation needed" From WP:Verifiability "If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."

You didn't try very hard, did you?

Would you like to try now?

Gravuritas (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You added the content based on links to non-WP:RS commercial websites promoting/selling the product. If you cannot support the content with reliable, non-commercial sources - then it should be removed. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Vsmith (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope yourself. We've done the WP:RS bit and you've failed to show that the cites ran counter to it- they are only counter to your self-defined mission statement. I've now added a number of cites: if you want to delete a commercial link that shows that gravure cylinders are available from xyz company that are hard-chromed, feel free- but then don't be an utter twerp and ask for verification that gravure cylinders are hard-chromed.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Seems I see no support for your position at WP:RSN here, but perhaps others will weigh in there. Vsmith (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

remaining CN tag re goniometer

I've added a couple of refs, and deleted a sentence that was difficult to source. There remains one outstanding CN tag, which is in regard to the use of goniometers for the inspection of used doctor blades. http://www.haylesden.com/goniometers.htm or http://www.bentongraphics.com/scope.html demonstrate the existence of these instruments. I can't find an alternative non-commercial reference. Any search in google or wherever for goniometer + "doctor blade" or goniometer + gravure results in a lot of extraneous hits because goniometers are also used in angle measurements of drops of ink (for surface energy purposes) in many printing processes, including gravure; and there is also mention in the literature of the use of goniometers for measuring the (presumed) angle of contact of the doctor blade on the gravure cylinder when installed in the machine. These are mainstream functions of goniometers and hence probably don't deserve a special mention in either this doctor blade article or the goniometer article- it would be like mentioning a list of things that a ruler can be used to measure the length of. However, the used-blade inspection usage is slightly unobvious, but moderately common within the industry, so I think it's worthy of mentioning. In brief, the function that I am trying to find another reference for is the use of a goniometer for inspection of _used_ doctor blades when removed from the machine. Gravuritas (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After spending a couple of hours on this I'm not seeing any non-supplier cites that mentions this use of a goniometer. Do you have any contacts in that industry? I'm wondering how old the use of a goniometer is for this purpose, and if there was any press coverage when it was invented. I'm also wondering if someone patented the technique. I think the best we can do for now is mentioning that the contact angle is important and a bad contact angle has well-known symptoms. Couple more suggestions: is there a printing history museum we could contact? Any academics who have made this area their specialty?

Sorry I struck out here.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, these conversations are rarely ever fruitful at all. My advice would be to just scrap all the bits with "citation needed" tags, and then search GoogleBooks and other places for reliable sources (there are many - I started this article and wrote a quick stub to start us off), pick one that catches your attention, then literally mine it for information. That way, everything that is added will be backed up by a reliable source. Then rinse and repeat. Don't try to source something already in the article. It's hard and often impossible.--Coin945 (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies. Thank you for your time on this & the other edits. In answer to the questions- probably not patentable; used for many decades, I should imagine. I do have lots of contacts in that industry, including academics, but I feel that I (and probably you) have spent enough time on a little-travelled byway of WP. Fwiw, I still think these circumstances might merit the 'very limited' use of a questionable source as mentioned in WP:RS. If commercial links are completely banned, my second preference would be to delete the CN tag; leave that bit of the article open to challenge, and if anyone challenges it in future then again draw their attention to the commercial links. Failing those suggestions, let's just wipe out the goniometer fragment of this article and the corresponding doctor blade entry in the goniometer article. @Coin945 Depends whether you want your colours to be bright and your whites to shine. Multiple washes, rinses, and repeats leave articles dull and grey. ;-)

Gravuritas (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was just tracking down a cite for that one fragment, yeah, probably best to give up. However, I don't think this article is too far off from being Good Article material. If you're sources can get you some out-of-copyright diagrams (or could help creating public-domain ones) as well as provide a few photos and some history, you're got something to be proud of.

But if you want to take a break from it, that's understandable.

If leaving the CN tag in place is going to be too annoying I'd recommend removing the goniometer fragment; we can always add it back later. Removing the tag without changing the text is just going to invite drama.

As to marginal sources, I think you'll be on firmer ground if you're citing product documentation rather than the product point-of-sale website. I'll see if I can dig up an example from the software articles. I think there's a way to phrase that sentence where the claim is narrow enough and neutral enough that a self-published source will be seen as sufficient.

And thanks for sticking around. Experts are scum, but we can't do without 'em. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. Goniometer bit removed, I hope the rest is in reasonable shape. I'll have another look at thewhole article, and see if there's any illustrations I can add, probably in a few weeks. Gravuritas (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor blade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130622062326/http://www.wmich.edu/pci/gravure/pp9.htm to http://www.wmich.edu/pci/gravure/pp9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]