Talk:Signal separation

Change title to "Source separation problems"?

Can we please change the title of this article to "Source separation problems"? The term "source separation" is also used in recycling. I've just created a disambiguation page for it. EMsmile (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've made this move now. EMsmile (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@EMsmile: "Problems" is a generic term, and there could be problems with any sort of "source separation". For example, there may be problems with separating different types of plastic for recycling (e.g. are there problems if your #1 plastic source is contaminated with some #2 plastic). So I don't think your page move has clearly identified the topic. What's unclear to me is whether there is any substantial difference between the "source separation" discussed in this article and blind source separation. If the word blind is omitted, that implies that the process isn't blind, i.e. the precise specifications for all sources are known. In which case, separating them may be trivial. It could be that the word "blind" is omitted because it's assumed the process is blind as otherwise there would be no problems with separating the sources. In which case there may be a content fork with the blind signal separation article. This article defines its scope as digital signal processing whereas the other is more broadly defined around signal processing. Neither article really gets into any differences between digital and analog source separation. Both articles talk about the cocktail party effect and magnetoencephalography as applications, which leads me to think I'm looking at WP:content forks. But both are longstanding articles dating to 2001 and 2004, and other editors have obviously been aware of the existence of each, so I'm surprised that I don't see that this issue has been raised before. Either these articles need to be merged, or the difference in the scope of each needs to be made more clear.

@Dicklyon: you're my go-to guy for matters like this. Do you have any special knowledge of this topic to sort out these two articles? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, my sister is a Civil Engineer with a career involving separation of waste and recycling streams. Still, I always thought source separation meant the audio things that I work on. Putting "problems" into the title was a lame move, but I can see how it was motivated by the way the lead was written many years ago. "Signal source separation" might be better if there's a consensus that this topic is not primary for Source separation. I'd roll back what EMsmile has done, but it looks like it affects a lot of things at this point. So maybe a multi-RM discussion here would be best for working this out. Dicklyon (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that complicated yet, so I filed a request to revert the move, at WP:RMTR. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done wbm1058 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@wbm1058 thanks for sorting this out. Indeed "source separation problems" was not a great title but that's how I understood the article (knowing nothing about digital images, signals etc.). However, I have the impression that the term "source separation" is more commonly used for things surrounding "Waste" than for things surrounding the digital space. I did a quick Google search for "source separation" and if I am not mistaken, the majority of hits is for waste separation issues. If that is the case, then the term "source separation" in Wikipedia should redirect either to the disambiguation page or to the page on recycline but not to this page. EMsmile (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

My search on the term returns mostly stuff relating to signals. Your search may be biased because Google may know what your interests are and shows you what it thinks you're looking for. But, see my suggestion in the next section. wbm1058 (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, wow, that's scary - I didn't think Google's search results are related to my previous usage of Google? I hope not. I thought it's simply based on their algorithms where pages link to other pages. But perhaps you're right and that would be a bit scary! - I like your suggestion that you put in the section below, by the way. EMsmile (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge into Blind signal separation

This article was started way back in 2001, as you can see from this early version in the Nostalgia Wikipedia. The article creator, Tbackstr, claims expertise in this topic on his user page, but "wrote something on the top of my head - please, someone, check the facts", per his edit summary. Hence the article remains unsourced to this day. However, a telltale external link included in the original version links to a page titled "Independent Component Analysis (ICA) and Blind Source Separation (BSS)" implies that the author was writing about blind source separation, a redirect from an alternative name created in June 2004‎. The content of this article hasn't really changed in a substantial way since the original version. The fork at the more common name for this was started 15 January 2004 by another author who likely didn't find the article at this more generic title.

You can blame this July 2004 edit for changing the scope of the article to make it about "problems".

@Dicklyon: your thoughts? Content fork or two separate topics? wbm1058 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is a fork that should be re-merged. Not all SS is blind, so I wouldn't put that into the title. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dicklyon How about moving Source separation → Signal separation – the terms "source" and "signal", while they do have different meanings, seem to be used interchangeably (Blind signal separation (BSS), also known as blind source separation) and "signal" is more specific than "source" and has no risk of confusion with waste-sorting applications. That frees up the title for moving Source separation (disambiguation) to the base title. I don't think it's a good idea to merge in the reverse direction, as the vast majority of stuff I see in Google search is about blind separation. Signal separation can be a short broad-concept overview that discusses the difference between "blind" and "sighted" separation, with a summary style link to the main article on Blind signal separation. If you agree this is acceptable, I'll submit the multi-requested move to ensure a broader consensus. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'm OK with Signal separation. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, did not remember that I have created this, waaay back. I support a merge, since the different terms are frequently used interchangeably. It seems "source separation" and "signal separation" are both used source signal, and it is probably a matter of taste whether you use "blind" or not. You need to have some assumptions about your source to be able to do source separation, whereby you are never truly blind (as in assumption-free). Having the word "problems" in the title would be strange IMO. Tbackstr (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion above [sic]. Dekimasuよ! 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• Source separation → Signal separation
• Source separation (disambiguation) → Source separation

– per the discussions above, "source separation" is an ambiguous term which also refers to the unrelated topic waste separation as well as signal separation. –. wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.