Talk:Transient (acoustics)

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Subsection of other page

There is however a subsection on the page Transient_(oscillation) titled 'Acoustics' that explains this meaning of transient. And it is also used in terms of signal processing, lying in kinda between the acoustic and the energy based explaination. AxezDNyde (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not any longer I'm afraid. Pity, it was the best redir target I could find. Perhaps someone will suggest a better one.

Good point re signal processing. Perhaps (acoustics) is not the best disambiguator, see below. Andrewa (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed undeletion

I have restored this talk page and its history, and propose to restore the history of the article as well if there are no objections. Meanwhile I have created an appropriate redirect at the article name.

If there are objections, then depending on what they are we may go to deletion review to discuss more formally or there are any number of other possibilities, including of course just dropping the idea.

Rationale: This is a very commonly used term, there are now a couple of dozen links to it [1]. These were previously redlinks one of which brought me here, and there will be more. The previous article while it had problems also contained some good, recoverable material, which should be restored as the source problems are cleaned up.

I will post heads-ups at the talk pages of the of the user and admin who PRODed it. Andrewa (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The initial proposer for deletion was User:Vexorg who commented The use of the word transient in audio is a misnomer which is why this article is both unreferenced and unsourced. To keep this article is only helping to encourage this misnomer. It was supported by User:Steve Quinn who commented I agree. Wikipedia is not the place to disseminate novel, and unsourced uses of words.

Agree on the need for sources. However, the usage is anything but novel, as the number of incoming links and a quick Google on transient acoustics -Wikipedia [2] shows, I get 5,790,000 ghits (your results may vary).

As for rejecting the term because it's a misnomer, I'm afraid this sounds rather soapy to me. The term is in use, in many reliable sources, and even if some of them call it a misnomer (and they do) that's no reason to delete our article, rather it makes it all the more important to have one.

It may be that a good redirect is the appropriate long-term solution. For the moment we just have a not very good redirect, and a proposal to undelete the page history so we can work on either a better redirect or perhaps even a properly sourced article. Much of the material in the history is fascinating and has a ring of truth to it, and it would be worth looking for sources. It's a shame only admins can see it at present. Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-ups posted [3] [4] [5]. Andrewa (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a contested PROD, the content can be restored upon request. As such, I have restored the last version (excluding the PROD tag, obviously!). If anyone feels that this should still be considered for deletion, please take it to Articles for deletion. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the term is a misnomer, and the acoustic behaviour in question isn't a transient whatsoever. Wikipedia has enough erroneous information in it without adding more. I shall put this page up for deletion again. Vexorg (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal for deletion is contested. As such, I am removing your PROD - if you think this should be deleted, you need to go to Articles for deletion and follow the instructions there for starting a discussion on the deletion of this article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Wikipedia should not spread erroneous material, but deleting a page because its title is a commonly used term that we or anyone else thinks should be changed is contrary to policy and rightly so. We don't want people searching for and linking to this term to find nothing. We want to take them to the correct information, which should include the reasons that the commonly used term is considered incorrect by authorities, citing those authorities of course. Andrewa (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting this out, Phantomsteve. I apologise for not knowing the proper procedures.

Is there any reason I should not now also restore the article history? It seems to me that it's necessary to do this for copyleft purposes at least, and it is also useful in developing the article, and should be referred to in any consideration of an AfD. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that you want an article in wikipdia about a term that is a misnomer, jsut becuase some people use this term, albeit mistakenly? Look you haven't even provided any sources or references, which if it was notable, you could have done easily. And neither have you explained in the article that the term is a misnomer. Vexorg (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. But perhaps alleged misnomer is a better term here. That's policy as I understand it, and for good reasons. See #Alleged misnomer below. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the undeletion by restoring the article history. I think it's important both for copyleft purposes and in terms of the current AfD. Andrewa (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

Transient is often used by sonar operators to enter large numbers of crit strings, referring to sudden, unnatural changes in the acoustic environment, usually caused by an unnaturally fast moving object.

This is at the very least jargon, I am guessing what it means, and unreferenced. When the article history is restored we can ask contributors to clarify things like this. I'll make a start on it, as an admin I can see deleted versions, but IMO I shouldn't need to use sysop powers for this, which is part of the reason for wanting full undeletion. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged misnomer

Comments above, and these edits, need some discussion.

For a start, neither have you explained in the article that the term is a misnomer (above). Well, no. Actually, all I've done so far is to remove text, not add it. But it's not my article, any more than it's yours.

It's not up to me to promote your POV there. Sorry if that's harsh, but you haven't provided any reference for the claim that it's a misnomer either, and in view of the evidence above regarding the wide usage of the term it would seem to require one.

No matter how authoritative and accurate your views may be, here you need to provide citations for any that are either challenged or even likely to be challenged. As does everyone else, of course.

Another problem is the lead now seems to say that the article is about the term. That's not true. The article is (a stub for an article) about the phenomenon described by the term. The section Sonar is about use of the term, but the article as a whole is about the phenomenon.

I'll have a go at some of these issues shortly, but meantime comments welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want the article deleted. But it's ironic you're complaining about unreferenced additions to an article that never had any references in the first place.

Perhaps, but two wrongs do not make a right. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the term. The actual phenomenon is not a transient and that's the point of deleting the article. I'm happy for an article about the term itself and how it's a misnomer when erroneously applied to the phenomenon of an attack portion of a sound. Incidentally the other inaccuracy is that acoustics isn't the only environment for this phenomenon as it occurs in electronic signals too. Vexorg (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that transients occur in other environments, good point. Do we have an article on them (by whatever name)? If so a merge and redirect to that article is a possibility.

Or do we already have an article that describes the phenomenon? If so a redirect might be in order. I did originally create one when I came here [6] but I see you have now deleted its target [7] .

If you're happy for an article about the term itself and how it's a misnomer when erroneously applied to the phenomenon of an attack portion of a sound, why the AfD? Isn't it at least premature, considering I've said I intend to work on the article, and you're working on it too? Still, a few days is enough to make some progress, particularly on refs which seems to be the main problem. Andrewa (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seriously putting forward some back street online shop as a reiable source? Vexorg (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see WP:RS Vexorg (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's academic now, we have two far better ones. I'd still like to put back the original, I think it's helpful. Maybe as an external link instead?

WP:RS doesn't explicitly comment on such sites either way. But this is a well-written site with no axe to grind, its purpose is to establish the credentials of the company. So they will have checked their stuff. We can be confident enough of this at least enough to regard is as better than nothing, surely. Andrewa (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? You're willing to believe anything published on the 'Net' on those grounds. Such frightening gullibility. And it's also exactly why such sources shouldn't be used in wikipedia. Vexorg (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm certainly not willing willing to believe anything published on the 'Net' on those grounds. That's known as a straw man, and it's a logical fallacy, and doesn't help your case. And perhaps I'm showing frightening gullibility, but that's known as a personal attack, and doesn't help your case. In fact you have put no case at all. Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack ???? Please don't be ridiculous, It's not a personal attack in the slightest it's just an observation on your erroneous logic that claims a backstreet vendor is, to quote, " its purpose is to establish the credentials of the company. So they will have checked their stuff" and such logic shows intense gullibility. I am merely describing your sensibilities not attacking you. Vexorg (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read the policy you just linked to. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop being too sensitive and realise that if you put forward your views on a public stage like Wikipedia talk pages you should have the courage to take criticism of your views without crying. Vexorg (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion noted. New personal attacks noted. Irrelevant to the discussion and unhelpful IMO. I guess that's one reason that we have the policy. Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, how are you going finding authorities to cite regarding the misnomer claim? Andrewa (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

any Authoritative source regarding a transient in terms of a signal ( acoustic, electronic or otherwise ) shows that applying the term to what is nothing more than a peak or attack signal is a misnomer. Vexorg (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically? Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transient signal can be any fast change in amplitude, positive or negative. When discussing transient treatment it should be intuited that it's rapid positive spikes that are addressed. But if you want to be THAT picky, go on and specify 'positive' transients. Clarksnyder (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What links here

(articles only, as of a few minutes ago)

Now the point is not that we should remove these links, that's trivial and not very constructive, or even that we should replace them with better links, although that's a possibility.

The point is that we can expect more such even if we do. It is a common term, like it or not. Andrewa (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point. You cannot use Wikipedia articles as sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it

Vexorg (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are not sources. See WP:REDLINK for a discussion on what it is - an indication that an editor, at some point at least, thought that an article should exist here. VQuakr (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These are not sources, and I never said they were. I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood the point of quoting them. Andrewa (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the point. And that point is that there was no point in quoting them. Vexorg (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that your point is that there was no point in quoting them. I explicitly said why I quoted them: The point is that we can expect more. I take it that you disagree. That could mean that you disagree that more such links will be created, or it could mean that you don't think it matters if they are, or it could mean something else that I haven't thought of.

Could you tell me what it is you disagree with, and why? Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion on the talk page is more productive when focused on improvements to the article without rather than on individual editors or semantics. VQuakr (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right of course, and in hindsight I probably should not even have responded above.

The list above was posted to make it easier for others to check my claim at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transient (acoustics) that there were 22 incoming links, and save them some work if they were curious (as I was, that's why the list was compiled) as to exactly what was linking here. If my claim there is felt to be inaccurate or irrelevant to the deletion discussion, then that discussion belongs in the deletion discussion, rather than here. Andrewa (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one would bother checking your claim about other wikipedia articles linking to this one. It's irrelevant and life is too short to worr yabout such things. The number of Wikipedia links to something means absolutely nothing in value to the validity of an article. Especially as Wikipedia itself is not an authority on anything. Wikipedia is just a consensus encyclopaedia based upon verifiability and not truth - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

This is why it's pointless busting a gut to make sure your pet viewpoint is included in Wikipedia. No one uses Wikipedia to find the truth about anything. Wikipedia is flawed in a multitude of areas. Vexorg (talk) 07:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's pointless busting a gut to make sure your pet viewpoint is included in Wikipedia, and I'm glad you see it that way, many make exactly that mistake.

And sort of agree about the second point too. They should not use Wikipedia uncritically. But I'd also have to say that sadly, many make this mistake too.

And that would also be true of many, if not all, scientific journals, perhaps even of academic publications generally.

Unsure what you mean by the last point. Wikipedia's main flaw is that it is misunderstood and, consequently, misused. I feel the same way about it that Einstein did about thermodynamics: Within the boundaries of its assumptions, it will never be overturned.

Correctly used, Wikipedia is invaluable. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Term or phenomenon

Example due to Vic Dudman.

Consider the following, formally valid syllogism.

Premise: My name is Vic Dudman
Premise: Vic Dudman likes beer
Conclusion: My name likes beer

The problem is that the first premise is actually false, in a sense important only to logicians, who are after all by definition the people who care most about whether a statement is true or false. The correct statement is "My name is "Vic Dudman"". And when we substitute that into our syllogism as the first premise, its validity entirely and rightly collapses.

To the article title and lead.

I've modified the lead [8] to correctly identify the topic. Any who can't see the how this is justified by the above discussion, please confess below. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LMFAO. The obsessive lengths you are going to is quite entertaining. I bet you're fun at parties. :) :) - Regardless of your seemingly obsessive quest the usage of the term 'Transient' for the short attack portion of an audio signal is a misnomer. It doesn't matter whether a million people mistakenly use the term or just one person it is still a misnomer. Even more hilarious is to think that because Wikipedia has allowed an article on this term that it suddenly doesn't become a mismoner. Wikipedia has no authority on anything. it doesn't work upon truth and even explicitly states this. furthermore youre nonsense about Vic Dudman is also irrelevant.

What have you achieved in life? You may have achieved to reinstate an article on Transients, but this is valueless. Those of us who are knowledgeable about this subject already know that it's misnomer, we already know that many people erroneously use this term for the phenomenon. No one is going to be in awe about yet another erroneous article on Wiikipedia, as wikipedia is the last place we look for accurate information. You are completely wasting your time. Vexorg (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of Wikipedia. I don't agree, see User:Andrewa/creed. But many do.

If Wikipeda is to achieve its potential, we need to give some credence to our policies and guidelines. These cover behaviour, content, lots of things.

It's not Calvinball.

I respect your opinion that I am wasting my time, and I guess yours too. Again, I don't agree.

I hope you will continue to contribute. See The Parable of the Ants. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A final(?) note

See http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/bellplates.html for a scholarly paper that uses the word transient in the sense of this article. I'm sure there are more. Andrewa (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy now?

Well Wikipedia officially has an article on the misnomer 'transient' as applied to the attack portion of an audio signal. The article barely passes verifiability and only only becuase Wikipedia mirrors anything erroneous that barely passes as 'notable'. I can understand this happening for geo-politics articles, but saddened to find this nonsense creeping into Physics. Such a shame as Wikipedia was, in theory, a fantastic idea. Vexorg (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AfD was quite clear; in fact, no one agreed with you that the article should be deleted. This is because a word can have more than one meaning, and the use of this word as described in this article is sourced. Drop the stick and walk away. VQuakr (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]