Talk:Test method

Edit war over lack of content?

• validations doesn't link to anything useful. Don't link there or link to something that makes sense.
• Repeatability and Reproducibility is typically, in the form of a Gauge R&R. It's not just that its sometimes in that form.

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to discuss this. There is no need for an edit war. 1) If you are not pleased with the validation page, then make appripriate edits to that page to improve it (that is how Wikipedia works). Since the subject is in fact validation, that page should be linked. 2) R and R are sometimes in the form of Gauge R and R. Many times, other forms of R and R are used. For example, ASTM standards (and some other standards organizations) do not typically use the Gauge R and R methodology: the auto industry does use it. If you have evidence that this methodology is "typical", please present that. Otherwise, we should use "sometimes". Rlsheehan (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of response indicates that the issue is resolved. I have linked to Verification and validation which has more content than the disambiguation page validation. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. Lack of response means that you haven't come to a conclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)