Talk:Stress testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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
 


Notes[edit]

What to do with this page, it is not specific in help file also --Biswajit Mohanty [not dated]

If the main factors are mention then it will be more helpfull. --Lalit Sahoo [not dated]

1) some information about load runner would also be helpful. 2) how the scripts are developed to simulate the real world scenario. --Ashutosh [not dated]

Is it OK to just remove the above three un-signed / un-dated comments? Take this one too then.Walkingstick3 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is almost a disambiguation page. I will make it one in fact. --Una Smith (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Under Hardware, would it not be better to talk about a "Processor" rather than a "CPU"? (If Mod thinks so, please change.) -baiusmc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baiusmc (talkcontribs) 01:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope of tests (systems or medical) ?[edit]

An observation: The "wikiproject Medicine" template on this Talk page does not match the article content (Stress testing of non-living Systems). If medical tests (of humans or organisms) are intended as well, they ought to be added to the article content.... unless that content already exists somewhere else (which I did not check) and then the template does not apply here. Or does the template intend to include testing of medical equipment perhaps? In all cases the article Title might benefit from a clarification like: Stress testing (Systems and Software) One good reason to keep "systems" and "medical" tests separate is the differing nature of the tests - systems are often expected to break in a useful test, but living beings are not. Walkingstick3 (talk) 03:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is content for the medical tests then we can break the article in two. I don't recall having seen any though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Just removed WPMED banner. There is no medical content in this article, but there is already a related article at Cardiac stress test. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Text lifted from brochure, reference removed for "spam." How to correct?[edit]

This section: "Stress testing defines a scenario and uses a specific algorithm to determine the expected impact on a portfolio's return should such a scenario occur. There are three types of scenarios: Extreme event: hypothesize the portfolio's return given a catastrophic event, often the recurrence of a historical event. Current positions and risk exposures are combined with the historical factor returns. Risk factor shock: shock any factor in the chosen risk model by a user-specified amount. The factor exposures remain unchanged, while the covariance matrix is used to adjust the factor returns based on their correlation with the shocked factor. External factor shock: instead of a risk factor, shock any index, macro-economic series (e.g., oil prices, property prices), or custom series (e.g., exchange rates). Using regression analysis, new factor returns are estimated as a result of the shock."

is taken word-for-word from this marketing brochure: http://www.factset.com/websitefiles/PDFs/brochures/stresstesting

I added a link to the brochure as a reference, and it was removed as a spam link. The source should be credited. What is the solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsummer (talkcontribs) 14:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no copyright date in the brochure.
That material was added by user:Ktsummer on 2008-12-17T21:00:20‎. Oddly, the same user who notified us of the violation. Will tag the user now that I have removed it from the article as a copyright violation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Walter Görlitz, that is not true. I did not add that section. When someone notified me that the section was taken from our brochure, I added the reference. From what I could tell, the section had been on the page since 2010. If you want to remove the section entirely, that's fine, but please do not flag me as a violator.katie 15:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktsummer (talkcontribs)

The edit clearly shows that you added the material and when you did it.
You're the copyright violator. You're the one who took the material word-for-word the marketing brochure.
Based on your edit history and your interest in the company that hosts the brochure, you also appear to be an employee of the company from which the material was lifted and have been since 2007. What we have here is a conflict of interest. You're trying to drive up your company's search engine placement by linking to it in Wikipedia. Now I have to go through all of your edits to see what other copyright violations you've added and what other spamlinks you've added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Or at least you, or someone using the account that you're currently using. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

This article, Stress testing, was started 2003-04-22T11:13:23 while stress test was started 2013-02-24T18:06:43. The material from the new article should be merged here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Title change Stress testing to Stress test[edit]

See Wikipedia:Article_titles

  • Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article
  • Use nouns
    • Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence.

Title was also changed to be consistent with detail articles and disambiguation page - see next. Rick (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Often, but it's not a requirement and the software development and software testing projects started before that uniformity. It should not be changed or moved without considering the rest of the project. Doing so without discussion is disruptive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Refactor (closed)[edit]

Note the following pages:

Refactoring created the Stress test (hardware) detail article. (yes that content needs some work). Stress test (financial) and Stress test (software) were standing. Some detailed content, formerly in Stress test was then moved to three detail pages (mostly hardware and financial). 100% of the original content was preserved. Nothing has been lost.

Refactor was to get a more consistent structure. Stress test topic is covered by a broad / general level article. See World War II which is often used as an example (as it has had "endless" editors work on it). After a general introduction they generally use one or two solid paragraphs with the details on that topic moved out to the more specific article. Example

Main article: Causes of World War II

When its confirmed that all content from Stress testing has been preserved as above, it can be blanked and replace with a redirect to Stress test. Rick (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, blanking is not acceptable. Assuming that the name change is agreed, then the article should be moved, along with its history, to the new title. This is entirely separate from the issue of refactoring. Any refactoring required can just as easily be done here as at the new title. The copy-paste of the article was not good, it means that an admin will now be needed to move the page to the new title.
I have not done the move right now because it is not clear whether the blanking was being reverted because of the name change or because of the copy-paste error. Once that is clarified and there is consensus for a move to stress test I will carry it out for you. SpinningSpark 17:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No. This assumes that the other article is better, which hasn't been confirmed. I believe that the content from there should be merged to here.
Maintenance templates shouldn't be removed, particularly when this discussion hasn't been concluded. I restored the merge template and we can request that an admin can merge the edit history as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I really don't understand your position here. Stress test is merely a fork of this article, there is no good reason for it to exist as a separate article and there is not really anything to merge. My reversion to a redirect to stress testing was to the edit you made for exactly the same thing and exactly the same reason, so I am left quite baffled. I am not assuming the other article is better, or even understand how you reached that conclusion. I am only offering to make the move on condition that there is consensus to do so, which clearly seems not to be the case. SpinningSpark 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't want stress test to exist as a separate article. I want its contents to be merged into this article and then we can have a redirect there. It should not be moved here as that would wipe out the contents of this article. Until that has been resolved, we should leave the merge templates in place.
We should take what's good from that article and drop it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
How confused can this get? No one is suggesting moving stress test here or wiping this article. Just the opposite, I am saying the history here has to be preserved as the history of the article. Even the creator of stress test now realises that is was a mistake to create a copy-paste fork. I don't think there is anything in that article not already here, but if there is, no one is disagreeing that it should be merged here. There really is no reason to leave the article in existence merely to advertise a merge proposal that no one disagrees with and can simply just be carried out. SpinningSpark 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
In that case, this article is where the material will stay for the reasons above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That is, the software development and testing projects, for which this is a foundational article, use "testing" or similar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I created Stress test in error. Copy/paste would not retain the history. Corrected that error with a redirect to Stress Testing. Stress test may now be deleted. Rick (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Material from final Stress Test, just prior to delete can be found at Talk:Stress testing/Stress test. Rick (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Rick, since there is disagreement, the article cannot presently be renamed until there is consensus for it. You either need to come to an agreeement with Walter or open a WP:RfC to get wider opinion. SpinningSpark 12:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with deleting the Stress Test article, and then we're done. Leaving this article where it is with a redirect from Stress Test, as it exists now, is fine and fits with the naming structure of the remainder of the Software Development and Testing articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Stress testing contents[edit]

After much discussion above, it was determined that stress test "is not a topic" and is clearly to be a disambiguation. When someone types in stress test in a wikipedia search, they now land on the Stress test disambiguation page. From there they narrow their focus and choose the most relevant article under the specific circumstances. Given the consensus determination, there is no need anywhere on Wikipedia for a single "broad brush" article that covers several variants of stress test. Each of the pages listed on the Stress test disambiguation page can be granular focused, 100% dedicated to covering a single stress test topic area. Probably want to continue in that direction by trimming down the contents of this page to focus only on software stress testing. (Note: hardware and financial topics have their own dedicated pages, that include the coverage here, so those sections can be trimmed out here without any loss of coverage. Rick (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary. The article is currently 15,643 bytes. The general rule is that 32K is the point at which articles should be split. At least one of the articles would be too small. And splitting software from hardware isn't necessary as they are both under the computing section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Since now we have a dedicated page for software stress testing, we can maybe have this page redirect to the disambiguation page, after saving anything important from it into the various focused pages. -- ADTC Talk Ctrb 03:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)