Talk:Goniometer

Untitled

Hi I would like to contribute to the Encyclopedia by mentioning some information that I resently read containing the word Goniometer. A goniometer was used by Sir W.M Flinders Petrie, to measure the angle of the great pyramid at Gizeh - as documented in his book called The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh 1883AD. Chapter 6,24. Angle of the pyramid. In chapter 6 index point 24. Petrie describes using a Goniometer with a level to find the angle of the Pyramid. Link http://www.touregypt.net/petrie/c6.html#24

Goniometer vs. Protractor

The definition for Protractor seems to overlap the definition for Goniometer. Is there an appropriate definition that separates the two, or are some goniometers also protractors?

Jbirt2 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Yo Dog, I think its like the difference between calipers and a ruler.Pngtime4wiki (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Every protractor is a goniometer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.230.17.58 (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Goniometer for Camera Lenses

The article makes no mention of goniometers for the calibration of camera lenses. This is an important use of goniometry, used in map making and space sciences 220.253.16.237 (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor blade inspection- spamlink

I've just added the section on doctor blade inspection, and cited a link to source of these type of goniometers-

[[1]]

which has been deleted as a spamlink by Materialscientist.

WP:SPAM says "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia"

The link in question adds to the article, by showing a goniometer which is very different to the ones illustrated, and also supports my text. I suggest that it is reinstated. For the avoidance of doubt, I have nothing to gain from Benton graphics.

Gravuritas (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The linked page is a commercial/promotional webpage and fails WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Please point out which bit of WP:RS that you believe it fails. The linked page is certainly a commercial page. If my edit to Goniometer had asserted that "Benton was the best" or something like that, or duplicated a written source, I could understand the objection. However, my edit to Goniometer was to add a section showing that, in addition to the uses previously listed, the instrument has a further use- inspection of used doctor blades. This use in fact is a moderately large use in comparison with the other specialist uses discussed, so the article previously was the poorer for the absence of this information. On the basis that WP likes sources, how would you like me to support my assertion that this use for goniometers is real? The existence of a commercial market for them proves their existence nicely, which was my purpose in putting the ink in. I have read much of what is written about gravure and other printing methods, and I can't recall a mention in a book or a written article on this use of goniometers: if you care to research one, feel free. In the absence of another written reference, for the moment we either have the commercial link or nothing. The link constitutes a further bonus in showing a radically different-looking goniometer from the ancient or lab-type goniometers illustrated in the article.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no commercial interest in Benton or in their competitors Daetwyler, which is a link I have posted elsewhere in WP.

Let me raise a more general point. Relative to WP's coverage of other issues, it is poor at technology & engineering. For pure science, the arts, history etc then broadly, the academics are in charge and an encyclopedia can be compiled from appropriate journals & books, and their net equivalents. For technology-related stuff then the knowhow is mainly in commercial enterprises: you might glean a few things from patents and journals but if you really want to know how to make something, with rare exceptions, it won't be from a book or a university. Denying WP the use of commercial websites as sources is likely to permanently cripple its coverage. To take another example, if you want to know about Wire edm, you'd better talk to AgieCharmilles. They have a very informative page in terms of the commercial technological guidelines at [[2]], but this is not included in the WP page, even though a couple of little commercial links are. Would including that same link in the wire edm page cause you to object in the same way?

I realize that I should be meeting this with WP:DGAF, but as a lifelong spam-hater it is particularly galling to be accused of it.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you wish, you are welcome to post at WP:RSN. A commercial webpage that exists to promote and sell a product is not a valid reference. Vsmith (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In regard to your Wire edm question - yes. Also see Doctor blade where multiple commercial links have been removed. Vsmith (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

So to summarize

• You don't wish to respond to my question on which bit of WP:RS the cite fails
• You seem to have invented a new rule "A commercial webpage that exists to promote and sell a product is not a valid reference."- if there's a WP source for that please let me know. I can't show that goniometers are used for a particular purpose by showing that someone is selling them for that purpose?
• and- correct me if I'm wrong- you've removed the citations to which you object and are now stating that citations are needed?

Gravuritas (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As above take it to WP:RSN. Also see WP:SPS as advertising/sales pages would seem to fall there. Vsmith (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Taken to RSN and it appears that you're inventing your own WP policies. However, as no cite has been requested so far then the reference can stay off until or unless the material is challenged.

Gravuritas (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal with Protractor

There is clear overlap, but the relationship between the two concepts/terms is not made clear in either article. In any case, it seems like a merge is desirable. 2.100.104.223 (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)