Talk:Proof

Whisky

What about: "Scotch whisky is normally distilled twice to around 130 or 140 proof"? - User:Olivier 06:48, 19 September 2002‎ (UTC)

We don't need to list every definition, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, if there is (or could be) a Wikipedia article on this concept (I don't know) and you know what it is (or should be) called (I don't), then go ahead and add it. — Toby 08:36 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

I was asking because I don't know what this one is. I assume it is a unit in some system, and could be included somewhere in a list of units. So if anyone knows, that would be helpful. - User:Olivier 08:53, 19 September 2002 (UTC)

It's a scale for measuring the alcohol content of beverages. The unit is "degrees" (100 degrees proof, etc). It's mostly an obsolete system, having been mostly replaced by ABV. - Khendon 08:58, 19 September 2002‎ (UTC)

Would you mind editing the Scotch article accordingly, if you think it is useful? (I am not familiar with the topic and might make an erroneous input. - User:Olivier 09:14, 19 September 2002 (UTC)

Er, I was just reading some stuff about degrees proof, and it's apparently something to do with the temperature at which the stuff would burn...

a quick look on the net gave good results

cyaround spiff

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.132.0.227 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2003 (UTC)

Bulletproof

Bulletproof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.91.64 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Printing

I got this page hoping to find something about proofs used in printing. I think they're stuff sent back to an author to check that it's okay before printing it. From wiktionary:proof: "(printing): A trial impression, as from type, taken for correction or examination; -- called also proof sheet." I thought this might be worth at least part of a Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure on the terminology and I can't be bothered finding out about it any more.—Vadmium 10:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Try adding to proofreading or galley proof --Henrygb 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Photographic proof?

Should this page have a link to, presumably, another page, discussing photographic proofs?

The concept is surely similar to an Artist's proof, but it strikes me as sufficiently different to warrant its own mention, if not its own page.

Being a fairly casual wikipedia editor, though, I figure I'd like input from others on whether or not this deserves a separate page. Thoughts?

I suppose there are actually several possible meanings here, as well:

• Proof that something acts and/or happened in a particular way (e.g. a "photo finish" in horse-racing);
• a proof print (a print made to show what an image might look like), which is what I was getting at above.
• A digital "proof", similar to a proof print, but digital.
• others?

I could maybe do some research and make a page for this, and link it in. Thoughts from others would be welcome, first, though.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindes (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a bit of an edit war going on; radical changes to the page should be discussed here (although some discussion is going on at Talk:Proof (truth)). -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As a technical Wikipedia question, is an edit war considered to have begun when the first edit is made, or when it is reverted? I just want to know who should bear the blame for escalating things to a "war" here. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has now been moved below. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reorganisation

This discussion began at Talk:Proof (truth), which is why the first sentence looks a little odd. —Toby Bartels (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the article is back in its original home of Proof (truth) I'd like to revisit the dab page for Proof. Currently it's in its original state that prompted me to write Proof (truth) in the first place, namely a list of two dozen pages. It's in that state because Gandalf61 reverted my reorganization of it.

The reorganization I envisaged for the dab page recognized that there were not two dozen meanings of "proof" but really only two, one for establishing the truth of a proposition, the other for verifying or quantifying the quality of a product. These naturally fell under the headings "Proof (truth)" and "Proof (quality)". I therefore created two pages with those names, and simplified the dab page to contain just those two pages.

Now that this article is back in a state consistent with this simplification of the dab page, does anyone have any objection to my restoring it to its simplified form? This of course also entails restoring Proof (quality), which Gandalf61 made a redirect to Proof. (I'll also point to this section in the dab talk page, but this talk page is where people's attention currently is focused.) --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Strongly support this proposal. There are two basic meanings of "proof", as above. The OED agrees, by the way. False vacuum (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support but let us not give the Overdosed Edict of the Dons too much control over things. History2007 (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

History2007, I welcome your support but are you with the humanities or the manatees? You're very kind, but don't get run down by the speedboat drivers on Wikipedia. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Kind? Moi? The thought never crossed my mind. I do think that this whole thing is an amazing joke given that so many supposedly smart people are spending time on such simple, trivial issues. And the HEART of the concept of proof has not even been addressed yet. The article is still just 5% done, after all the hoopla. If you intend to talk about proof as an attorney or risk analyst refers to it (rather than a logician) it has missed the boat. It is really clinical and unreal. Proofs just do not work that way. Else it should be called mathematical proof. History2007 (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say I strongly oppose Vaughan Pratt's modifications to the Proof page, which lose several important meanings of the word "proof," and do not seem to me to follow WP:MOSDAB. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How is that sufficient reason for reverting the entire page back to what I was complaining about? Why couldn't you simply have added whatever meanings you thought were missing? What are they, anyway? I don't see any on the page that you've created that didn't belong in one of the three categories I was in the process of creating when you reverted it all. We now have the same situation Gandalf61 created earlier where no one can evaluate my proposal because one person objects to it and removes it so no one else can see it. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm also mystified by what part of WP:MOSDAB has been violated here. You are not communicating very clearly with your fellow editors, and you are making it hard for them to work on Wikipedia. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

We have policies on dab pages: both Gandalf61 and I are maintaining the original structure of Proof (modulo some sorting) in line with those policies. You've written an interesting article; but it should not replace a set of links on the dab page; nor should the dab page have child dab pages. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see where WP:D says that this is rare, but where does it say it cannot happen, or even recommend against it?

However perhaps we can find some middle ground via the notion of primary topic. Would you say that "galley proof" and "proof coinage" were just as central to the notion of "proof" as the meaning treated in Proof (truth)? If not then perhaps "proof" with this truth meaning could be treated as a primary topic and have a hatnote of the form "For other uses, see Proof (disambiguation)". I would imagine someone going to Wikipedia to look up "proof" would not be at all surprised to be taken to this meaning over the many more minor ones, no individual one of which seems as central to human thought processes as the notion of proof of a fact. As evidence for this the first six entries for "proof" at dictionary.com are all variants of the meaning treated at Proof (truth). Does this seem reasonable? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's rare for a reason: it hinders the reader. And there are multiple meanings of the word "proof," so replacing this page by Proof (truth) would be completely inappropriate. I've reorganised to highlight Proof (truth) at the top so that anyone who wants it can find it easily. The point of a dab page is to get the reader to where they want to be as quickly as possible. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, but perhaps weakly. I very much like Vaughn's proposal to have articles on the three main meanings of the word; certainly I like Proof (truth). But I also think that long lists are a good thing at disambiguation pages (well, up to a point). Part of the problem is that the list on this page is really never reproduced on the three other pages. Another part is that people may have to stop and think what sort of proof they're dealing with instead of just scanning the list. I will made an edit to Proof to show how the long list can be kept while also showing the tripartite division of meanings. —Toby Bartels (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the mathematical articles grouped together, just for practical purposes: most readers searching for "proof" will know whether they want a mathematical article or not. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is [this edit https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Proof&oldid=372682707], which as you can see does keep the mathematical articles grouped, but in their proper place. If Proof (quality) and Proof (resistance) (which I haven't even looked at yet) are not kept, then my suggestion is [this edit https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Proof&oldid=372682780]. (My suggestions could probably use some more boldface or something.) In the meantime I have reverted to [your version https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Proof&oldid=372682899], Radagast. —Toby Bartels (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding And there are multiple meanings of the word "proof," so replacing this page by Proof (truth) would be completely inappropriate. this argument is applicable to every primary topic with a hatnote in Wikipedia, and then there'd be no primary topics. If the first six entries for "proof" in dictionary.com are all about the establishing-truth notion, that sounds pretty primary to me. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally this would merely entail moving Proof to Proof (disambiguation), leaving it exactly as you've got it organized now. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case there are several groups of meanings for "Proof," none of which is primary, so policy dictates a dab page, not an article with a hatnote. People shouldn't be forced to read your article if they don't want to. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Having now looked at Proof (quality) and Proof (resistance), I agree that these should remain redirects, until somebody writes general articles about them, analogous to Proof (truth). Offhand, I don't see why such article couldn't exist, although also I don't know what I would write in them.

Also, the idea that Proof (truth) might be moved to Proof and Proof moved to Proof (disambiguation) is a very reasonable one (if the statistics support it), but frankly I don't think that Proof (truth) is up to taking those hits right now. It needs to be just as easy for someone reading an article on (say) mathematics or the law to find the pages that they need from Proof (truth) as from Proof (disambiguation), but it isn't; yet Proof (truth) is about the concept that this hypothetical reader is looking for too. So right now, the disambiguation page would work better for most readers, in my opinion.

—Toby Bartels (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems there is more disagreement on this than was apparent from the initial responses, so I'm happy to sit back and wait for more opinions to come in. I was eager to get this project off my desk, but evidently too eager. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think a dab page with a highly visible summary article is probably ideal: readers with a specific article in mind can scroll and click, and the bewildered readers can go to your overview article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The inebriated readers might need even more support than the bewildered ones... --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think readers are better served by a single disambiguation page. If a reader types "proof" into the search bar, it should be as easy as possible to get to the specific article that he or she intends. Splitting the disambiguation across several pages will make the reader's task more complicated. Independently of the disambiguation issue, I am not opposed to having toplevel articles on the two notions of proof (as proof (truth) and proof (quality)). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the same argument could be made for hundreds of Wikipedia articles that are currently primary topics with only slightly secondary other meanings. For example the primary topic Straw has a dab page Straw (disambiguation) which includes drinking straw, straw (colour), etc. Since these other meanings are common ones you would have argued that Straw should be a dab page and the current primary topic renamed to Straw (agriculture). You probably use the word "straw" more often yourself to mean drinking straw than the agricultural by-product.

Other such examples: Drill, which could mean practice, or routine (you know the drill), or parade movements, or the fabric, or a type of snail, or a type of primate, but they went with the tool as the primary topic. The primary topic for Count could have been its numerical meaning, or less likely indictment, or the baseball term, but none of those (you count things every day, but when was the last time you encountered a titular count in either the newspaper or the flesh?). Law could have been laws of nature or science, but evidently the lawyers beat out the scientists for that one (don't ever argue with lawyers). --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Where people want to go

Some statistics:

• Alcoholic proof has been viewed 19,362 times in 201006.
• Evidence has been viewed 12,304 times in 201006.
• Mathematical proof has been viewed 9,621 times in 201006.
• Waterproofing has been viewed 5,207 times in 201006.
• Proofing (baking technique) has been viewed 3,843 times in 201006.
• Galley proof has been viewed 3,456 times in 201006.
• Proof coinage has been viewed 1,884 times in 201006.
• Proof (1991 film) has been viewed 1,796 times in 201006.

-- Radagast3 (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good point about alcoholic proof, I was losing my perspective about the relative importance of subjects. I'm off to the fridge for a beer. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a sad truth about Wikipedia that traffic to and importance of articles do not correlate well. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

After finishing my beer it occurred to me that it was very like the beer I'd drunk yesterday, which got me to wondering what the numbers were for the other articles falling into the Proof (truth) category (not counting dab page articles like Justification). Some damned statistics:

• Formal proof has been viewed 1,937 times in 201006.
• Argument has been viewed 20,773 times in 201006.
• Evidence (law) has been viewed 11,787 times in 201006.
• Theory of justification has been viewed 2,572 times in 201006.
• Philosophic burden of proof has been viewed 2,574 times in 201006.
• Legal burden of proof has been viewed 9,753 times in 201006.
• Proof theory has been viewed 3,436 times in 201006.
• Scientific evidence has been viewed 2,173 times in 201006.

Adding the numbers Radagast3 found for Evidence and Mathematical proof, the total for Proof (truth) type topics comes to 76,930.

At 19,362 Alcoholic proof is a worthy contender, but it accounts for the lion's share of the articles in Proof (quality).

Those are my statistics, if you don't like them I have lies. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

By all means count the piped link Justification, which has been viewed 3,369 times in 201006, taking the total over 80,000. Another worth contender is Proofreading, which has been viewed 13,766 times in 201006. The Proof (truth) category is clearly in the majority, but not overwhelmingly so, and therefore no argument to un-dab (if that's a word) Proof. And I'm still not seeing a case to replace the sheer convenience of a dab page, since the average reader probably has a question which is much more specific than "What, in general, is a proof?" If the article I'm really looking for is Proof theory or Legal burden of proof, wading through prose looking for a link is sheer wasted effort.

If the dab page was to be replaced, such a replacement would need to be with an article structured a little like Discrete mathematics, with clear links to the main child articles (i.e. navigable without reading all the prose), but I can't imagine an article that would satisfy the average reader better than the existing dab page/overview combo. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of replacement: no contents change, only page names. Take Earth for example. By your argument you would want this to be what is currently Earth (disambiguation), and rename Earth to Earth (planet). The only difference then is that someone wanting the planet meaning requires one more mouse click, while those wanting any of the other meanings are saved a mouse click. It's the same deal here. In all such cases (of which Wikipedia must have thousands), there's a simple binary choice, whether or not to have a primary topic.

Since the argument you've been making for not nesting dab pages is ergonomic, this choice should be based on elementary ergonomics: what's the expected number of mouse clicks, key strokes, cursor motions, and hand movements between keyboard and mouse, each suitably weighted. You're the discrete mathematician, do the math and save Wikipedia users millions of interface operations by making whichever choice is more efficient. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Navigation

It didn't quite pan out, but I think Toby Bartels was on to a good thing by creating some indented structure.

I've also added some pictures to help better identify the groupings, and hopefully speed navigation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Those images have been deleted, perhaps wisely. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Shockproof

We need to mention shockproof:

• resistance to electrical shocks, e.g. sparks or power surges; and
• resistance to shock waves, e.g. being struck with a hammer.

Unfortunately, the article shockproof is just about a movie. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of a dab page was to list articles that might fall under that heading. Wiktionary needs entries, Wikipedia needs articles. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, dab listings should not be limited to existing articles. Offhand I also say yes in particular, in favor of some listing or two for resistance to shock. (I hope the shockproofs will be grouped with waterproof, fireproof, etc, with some useful layout, perhaps a version of indentation.)

Should such listings include redlinks, eg shockproof (electrical shock) for the first version of resistance to shock? Those are heavily used for human subjects of hoped-for or should-be biographical articles. There must be 10000s of redlinks composed without much care regarding what will likely be the title of any such article. I don't know policy or wisdom on the matter. --P64 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

I moved the entries that appeared not to be ambiguous with "proof" to the See also section, as partial title matches (WP:D#Partial title matches). Other entries moved to the "See also" section could probably be deleted instead (e.g., Argument, Evidence), unless there is some reason to think that readers seeking those articles will enter "proof" in the search box. If there's a need for a list of articles related to arguments, evidence, proof, theorems, etc., they should be collected in a list article instead, and that article linked from "See also".

I also replaced "Evidence for the truth of a proposition or statement – see Proof (truth) for an overview" with "* Proof (truth), sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition", as per the disambiguation page style guidelines (WP:MOSDAB).

I also formatted the entry for Proof (2004 TV series) by the style guidelines.

I also removed blue links from the descriptions of entries that already had a blue link as the entry link.

I also simplified the descriptions of the songs.

I should have removed the pipe link from Prepress proofing, but overlooked it, also per the style guidelines.

In the new arrangement, readers looking for something that could reasonably have been sought as "proof" will find it in the main list, and the rest of the slightly related topics can be found in the See also section.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Small points

I like Proof (truth). I have decided not to join the disambiguation wikiproject, which may be time well spent. For information about that project let me indirect you to the hatnote at Disambiguation (disambiguation) ;-)

I don't see the big picture clearly so I merely offer these tidbits FYI.

• We have a neighboring dab page Proofing.
• We have both Prove and Proving as redirects to Evidence(!) which target provides this hat note.

For other uses, see Evidence (disambiguation).

"Proving" redirects here. For rest period during the fermentation of bread dough, see Proving (baking technique).

The latter is a redirect to the one spelled with "oof". --P64 (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Prove and Proving should redirect here, they now do, and I've moved "Evidence" up higher in the page to compensate. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)