Talk:Machine vision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Robotics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Machine vision is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

weasely repetitive lead[edit]

The lead gives two very similar definitions and also has an incredibly weasely bit in the middle that says the "definition is difficult to distil". I fixed it but it was reverted Bhny (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If the RSs indicate that the definition is not widely settled, the article should reflect that. I do not see how what is there, or what you are saying, fits the description in WP:WEASEL. In fact, the sentence seems sourced pretty well. Novaseminary (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Every article could say "this topic is difficult to define" it's the ultimate in weaselyness. Just because you have sourced something like that doesn't mean it's good. The job of the lead is to define the topic, not grumble about how difficult it is to define. Also I would expect the 2 definitions to be different if there was this difficulty Bhny (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I doubt many articles about people, or places, or particular things would face any real definitional problem. More abstract ideas and processes, like machine vision, maybe. But the "weasel" language is straight from a RS (or at least one you have not challenged or contradicted) not my or any other editors OR or interpretation (that would be a problem and violate WP:WEASEL). If a topic is sufficiently hard to define, or not yet defined with consensus among those in the know, why isn't that fact worthy of inclusion if sourced to a RS that found it worthwhile to discuss early in the book (page 5)? Novaseminary (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Novaseminary, which doesn't happen often.  :-) Not that the lead couldn't use work, but this aspect is more salient in this field than it is in a more typical one. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Then expand on these competing definitions. At the moment the lead is- MV is def1 . definitions are difficult but MV is def1 again. Bhny (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree that we should do that. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK well I made a start by combining the 2 similar definitions. Now we can add these contradicting definitions Bhny (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

"Multi-Camera" insertion[edit]

I know that the discussion has centered around sourcing, but that insertion is also really not appropriate for that location. There's nothing indicating that it isn't 2D visible light imaging, which is what that enumeration is. Now multi-camera stereographic imaging would be a different story. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)