Talk:Seven basic tools of quality

Deming

Resolved

William Edwards Deming used W. Edwards Deming as his working name and ought not to be called E. Deming in the section titled Origin of the designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.42.250 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This issue has disappeared at some point since you made your comment. In the future, don't forget that this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and that includes you. We also have a motto to WP:BE BOLD. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

flow chart and run chart arent QC 7 TOOLS

You claim "flow chart and run chart arent QC 7 TOOLS". Yet the WP:RS cited, http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/seven-basic-quality-tools/overview/overview.html, clearly states some lists replace “stratification” with “flowchart” or “run chart". It would be best if you actually understand the subject before you click the "edit" button. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

qc seven tools from Japan, the Japanese version of the proposed reference ja:品質管理#QC七つ道具. Your reference information (link) is a management consulting firm of course, can not represent the original intent of qc 7 tools. Zenk0113 (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

層別

データを同質なグループ（層）ごとに分けて分析する（層については層化抽出法を参照）。例えば年齢層ごとに分けて分析したり、機械ごとや原材料ごとに分けて分析する。データを取得する上で必要な考え方の一つである。データを層別に分析することによって正確に情報が把握できることがあり、問題の原因判別につながる有効な手段である。

To address your bizarre claims:

• "qc seven tools from Japan" Did you read the Seven Basic Tools of Quality article, especially the part that states "The designation arose in postwar Japan, inspired by the seven famous weapons of Benkei.[6] It was possibly introduced by Kaoru Ishikawa..."?
• "the Japanese version of the proposed reference" The Japanese article that you link contains exactly one WP:RS and that reference is not used to back your claim.
• "Your reference information (link) is a management consulting firm of course" No it's not. The American Society for Quality is a nearly seventy-year-old professional association that is similar in nature to ja:日本科学技術連盟.
• "can not represent the original intent of qc 7 tools" Again, read the f***ing article and read WP:BALANCE. ja:石川馨 (Kaoru Ishikawa) is cited which covers "the original intent of qc 7 tools". The ASQ and Masaaki Imai references cover other views. (Not that the difference is really that material.)

Everything of which you complain demonstrates that you've not actually read the article. Read the article before you start complaining. The "issues" of which you complain exist only in your imagination. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

It is only course Introduction,not represent the original meaning. QC 7 tools in Quality Control is the most basic and easier . Many consultants (or Education and training company) teach those courses with own idea or combination other tools , but not be able to represent his original meaning. Zenk0113 (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• "It is only course Introduction,not represent the original meaning" So, you didn't bother to read WP:BALANCE.
• "QC 7 tools in Quality Control is the most basic and easier" That's exactly what the article in its current form says.
• "Many consultants (or Education and training company) teach those courses with own idea or combination other tools" That's exactly what the American Society for Quality page points out and that's why it's included in this article as reference #3.
• "but not be able to represent his original meaning" And yet, Ishikawa's original meaning is fully represented in the article.

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)