Talk:Failure

Engineering Start‑class Top‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archive 1 - archived top-of-page anti-bush political rhetoric. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is fail spelt that way?

I really don't think fail is normally spelt phail, should it be moved into the section about the internet meme?

I agree, this is highly misleading to the average scholar. Many people go to Wikipedia for facts, and they take these facts very seriously. some one could get fired because they spelled fail "phail" and were put back in 3rd grade. There is no citation for that false spelling, and is technically considered vandalism. It would be nice if someone could remove that.-64.91.158.52 (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL \/&4L1zm!!!1 (sigh)

There's some vandalism in the 'flavours of failure' section which I can't seem to get rid of in the normal way. Someone thinks they're very clever.

Page content seems confused

This page looks like it might be about engineering failure, indeed it is linked from other subjects on reliability, but it also contains some other concepts like failure as the opposite of success (e.g. failure to win a sporting tournament). It seems to me this page needs to be split into several disambiguated pages. Sangwine 12:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC) asd[reply]

LOL \/&4L1zm!!!1 (sigh)

There's some vandalism in the 'flavours of failure' section which I can't seem to get rid of in the normal way. Someone thinks they're very clever. 78.151.157.156 (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Failure" on Google

Many people have been offended and delighted by what seems like a politically slanted result on Google. The truth is that when you type in the word "failure" on the search bar for Google, George W. Bush's biography is the first result. To clear you mind and hear the facts on this matter, there is an article on Google concerning it. [1] --Mbobanda 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whilst this is very entertaining, the fact doesn't really seem to me to be of merit to the article. Andyroo g 12:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A glitch in (or abuse of) Google has nothing to do with the actual concept of "failure" - so lets drop it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:29, 28 July 2007 (UTCld

Democrats Failure to have any brain cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.170.131 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush's biography and record of "success" should still be on this link, nothing could be more accurate.

Wikipedia is not the place for political propaganda - Jaqel 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And how can you say something has failed when it hasn't finished yet? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its hysterical George W. Bush was coming up with people put "failure" into google. It was some kind of glitch somebody had programmed. I remember reading an article about it on the internet. There are several other words that give similar, unexpected results, like "via retardo" gives you the office of the mayor of Los Angeles. It appears the GWB result no longer comes up -- the wikipedia article is now the first result to come up. Now... why the hell isn't this mentioned in the article? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Version added

I added a translation at pt.wikipedia.org. Can an Administrator add "pt:Fracasso"? Thanks!

Al Lemos 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) August 08 2007[reply]

Reference to ISO 10303-226: this standard has been withdrawn by ISO

Under heading "Formal technical definition", a reference is made to ISO 10303-226. However, conform the ISO TC184/SC4 committe, ISO 10303-226 has been withdrawn; see http://www.tc184-sc4.org/SC4%5FOpen/SC4%5FWork%5FProducts%5FDocuments/STEP%5F%2810303%29/200-299/documentation.cfm. I suggest to remove this reference.

Other Failures

Rolls-Royce uses the euphemism "failure to proceed" (or FTP) in place of "breakdown" whenever one of its vehicles fail to operate. This is presumably a position of pride that they take, that their automobiles never break down. Should this use be included in the article? - Loadmaster 21:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedia entry, it's a definition

Wiktionary is for word definitions. I can't see anything in this article (or imagine anything new added to it) that would turn it into a wikipedia article on a person, place, or thing.

Failure is an abstract noun and doesn't need an encyclopedia entry. There are those who go about mercilessly deleting spurious Wikipedia pages, and I think they should check this one out. Deletionists, where are you now?

Steve Rapaport 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to edit this page, so I beg someone who can to remove the "List of Military failures" from the other failures list. It is politically biased to use that as an example and therefore innappropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauron is black (talk • contribs) 22:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of definitions

This actually is a collection of definitions, and a useful jump-point to several other wikipedia articles. The Wiktionary article on failure lists none of the information in this article and, by design, should not. That this article describes a somewhat abstract concept, and may not conform to your imagined structure of a wikipedia article, does not automatically make it a candidate for deletion. I believe it has enough valuable information, including links to related articles, that it should be preserved. Gladmax 12:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

I can not find the book, the author, or the publisher BOOM, BUST, BANG! (Lansdowne)—can someone supply the source or the ISBN? DocWatson42 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that the book realy exists... so I have removed it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAIL Images - Meme - Fail Blog.

Images from the meme FAIL also some "Your doing it wrong" images which are a subset if the FAIL meme.

Images started appearing online in the early part of 2007 and a series of them where passed around social networks and blogs. This is a collection (adver free) of images collected so far.

Fail Funnies.com, a popular fail blog that has emerged during the year 2008 has comprised a catalogue of many famously epic fails. Consisting of images and videos of many bloopers, blunders and crazy pranks, fail funnies fail blog is considered one of the primary authorities for everything fail. Other fail blogs that are considered originators and certified fail sites are ShipmentOfFail.com in addition to Failblog.org.

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.4.187 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any third-party citations in notable publications? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term for intentional failure

What is the term for intentional failure of a product in order to decrease supply? Is there a distinct governmental, political, or anarchist term for perpetualizing a problem through intentional failure by an institution, e.g. the failure of the "war on drugs" to seize or hinder major sources of illicit drugs & instead performing security theater by raiding individual homes? -Erudecorp ? * 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word would be "success". If someone completes an action as intended ("Play-acting a failure") then it is actually a success. No special word for it that I know of. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]