Talk:Quench polish quench

Template?

The template on this page is utterly inappropriate, and if I knew how to remove it I would. It's a brand new page for a brand new process - it will get better. I'm sorry you find it it "too boring to bother anyone in the real world," and that you don't approve of the acronym, but since when is that a wiki criteria!? I came here looking for precisely this kind of information on QPQ. This article should stay and be improved.23.28.40.163 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

(From the PRODding editor) It is not that I don't approve of the acronym, and I didn't say it was "Too boring for the real world", I said it was of "no interest to the general reader", which are different things. Personally I find metallurgical processes quite interesting, but this is not about the process at all it is about a specific product (see WP:PRODUCT) from a non-notable company (see WP:CORP), and its refernces are purely to the company's own information (see WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS). The book references are vague just to the whole book, although "quench polish quench" is mentioned in [1]. The point is, as it stands to me, it is a trademarked process by one manufacturer, or at least as the article stands it kinda asserts that it is. (A quick Google search shows that other companies do use the QPQ process, but they are not mentioned here...) Since there is already an article at Ferritic nitrocarburizing.this looks more like a plug than anything else, and probably the best bet is to redirect it to that, but since I've now prodded it, it would not be fair on other readers or editors getting here suddenly to find this discussion rather hidden (it would still be here but hard to find by readers who quite rightly don't know about the redirect mechanism).

I will remove the PROD for you; since it's contended it obviously shouldn't be PROD since that is meant for uncontroversial deletions and obviously this is controversial. Si Trew (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is essentially the assertion in the lede that "QPQ is a trademark..." etc; and the redirect QPQ led straight here... it doesn't any more because I moved it to point at Quid pro quo (disambiguation).

Personally I think that since it asserts that "QPQ" is a trademarked term etc the tone is too promotional. But I agree that it could be turned into a more interesting article. The thing is then we would have to establish whether "QPQ" is a more likely search term for "quid pro quo" or "quench polish quench", but that can be kinda sorted out via discussion at WP:RFD (Redirects for Discussion).

The thing is typing QPQ into Google search brought me immediately to this article when I wanted "quid pro quo". Having seen it and that, in its lead it asserts that QPQ is a registered trademark of a particular company, I then thought that fails the criteria I mentioned above so I took WP:BOLD and did something about it. In Wikipedia terms registered trademarks are (roughly speaking) not recognised; that is not to say they are ignored (Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously) but that trademarks vary across jurisdictions and are generally only trademarks within the particular ambit of trade they are used in (for example the Royal Mail for example has trademarked "the colour red", but that only means that other United Kingdom couriers cannot go around passing themselves off as the Royal Mail, it doesn't mean that you can't paint a car red; so from an encyclopaedia's point of view the only references to trademarks are in articles about trademarks e.g. genericized trademark). Because this kinda flagged up something queer to me i pursued it, and since the graphs etc are from one company's literature then I marked it as being promotional, then went probably a little far in proposing it for deletion, which I have now removed for you. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way what I meant by "no interest to the general reader" was that when it was kinda ringing alarm bells that it was a trademarked process etc then that is no interest to anyone outside the industry at all; the process is interesting to anyone who is interested in it (well, at least I learned a bit from it) and there is no doubt that this is a positive contribution to Wikipedia. It was just that one sentence saying "QPQ is a trademark..." that set alarm bells ringing. I have added a ref to a textbook. Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

From talk with 23.28.40.163

I have removed the proposed deletion tag that I added; that is meant for "uncontroversial deletions" and since by your adding to the discussion it is in that sense controversial, it is quite right to remove the tag. (You can do it yourself just by editing the page like any other page.) Please follow that link for a completely boring ramble by myself about why I think the article has problems. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the very diplomatic response. The Article without question has problems, and I don't think you're rambling. (Well, maybe just a little ;). I know next to nothing about Wikifying but I will try to make some improvements to the article in the next few weeks. You are indeed correct that QPQ is a subset of nitriding, but it has significantly distinct applications; for example, a context in which it is currently being hotly discussed is use on bolt carrier groups. I'd be okay with a re-direct done right, but my fear is that information will be lost because someone who has no interest in the topic considers it trivial.

You are also quite right that a number of companies are using the QPQ process - I've seen a number of them claim it is their "proprietary process." Unfortunately I haven't the foggiest about patent status etc., but I will see what I can do about finding some secondary sources that are interested in the process and not the company. Thank you!23.28.40.163 (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The simplest thing for now is just to remove the sentence making a claim to the name, which I shall do. The advertisement tone springs mostly from that, that the lead says "QPQ is a trademark of whatever" as if no others existed. I will remove that and the ad tag; it's fine for stuff to be quoted from trade pubs (there is a long-going discussion on this somewhere that I have stuck my oar into) but it just must not seem like a plug for one company. In fact I was mistaken anyway since the information present comes from two.

It's not a question of whether they do or don't actually have trademark status, more that Wikipedia doesn't really set much stall by that (Microsoft for example is not Microsoft® at every occurence). This is really because trade marks are only there to be defended in a particular trade or realm, so in an encyclopaedia which is outside of that realm they make no sense. There are loads of articles about trademarks, such as genericized trademark or the Trade Marks Act 1994 (to pluck one I have just been referring to at the article passing off) but Wikipedia doesn't tend to mark every use of every trademark with the R sign or SM or TM or whatever

So when a company essentially asserts its trademark in an article it smells very fishy. Best just to remove that assertion, they'll survive.

It's not a question of being diplomatic, we should assume good faith with others' edits. Most people come to edit Wikipedia to improve it, even though there are naturally differences of opinion on how best that is done. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few edits which I hope sort of knocks it towards where we want it to be. I think I will try to add the reference that I gave in the talk page next. Feel free to add to it yourself, I've removed the "promo" tag and indeed "primary sources" tag since now it doesn't have the trademark assertion it is quite fine for it to refer to particular companies' literature. Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I am going to copy this discussion into the talk page at Quench Polish Quench so that it is recorded as part of the discussion. Thank you very much for helping to improve Wikipedia; I added a few more references. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

Company "published" content pimping their products is not a reliably published third party content which is required for promotional claims and to establish notability. The tags have not been addressed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

What you need to do is add reliably published sources, not company "published" content pimping their products. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources (copied from my talk page)

I don't know why you removed the references at this article. If you look at the talk page of the article, you will see I have been trying to add references. I've taken out your tags. Si Trew (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

THe thing is RedPen, I actually PRODded this for exactly the reason you have on your edit summary, because it was a push of a product (or rather asserted it was). But having done some research, the quench-polish-quench process is not exclusively used by one company, although many companys kinda assert trademarks on it; I removed the trademark assertions but left them in the reference which to me seemed fine because one should quote literally from a source (in main text I would have removed it). I have tried to balance it in that way. Si Trew (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How is Liapina, T.; Leineweber, A.; Mittemeijer, E. J. (June 2003). "Nitrogen redistribution in ε/γ′-iron nitride compound layers upon annealing". Scripta Materialia. 48 (12). Elsevier: 1643–1648. Retrieved 16 February 2014.(subscription required) a "company pimping its products"? That reference was not there four days ago, now it is because I checked it and looked it up. I should like to have the graphs out of that article but they are probably copyright. Si Trew (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be at article talk. I added stuff at article talk. Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are working to improve the article, but until the majority of the content is actually sourced to reliably published third-party sources, the concerns identified by the tags are still valid and they should not be removed.

I am working, I hope, with a new editor so I am being a little nice and not so much a sweeney todd as perhaps I would be otherwise. I don't want to daunt the new editor with stacks of stuff at the top.

In my opinion, although they are trade sources, what else isn't? If you get stats for a football team it would be from the football league, i.e. essentially a trade source. If you get a list of people who appeared in a film or on telly, you get it from Equity or the PRS, i.e. a trade source.

There has been a continuing to-and-fro at various discussion boards about whether trade sources are RS etc; these are at least secondary sources because it is not as if the article mentions their products. The trade names I used in the lede I had actually taken out in the first place as product placement, but decided to re-insert them as they seem to be widely used in the trade, this is simply tmo help the chances of a reader being able to find the article they are interested in and is why I don't put the trademark symbols etc in the lede, but if the trade calls them that, it calls them that.

The trade sources I added seem to be fairly neutral, i.e. of course they are advertising their product but not overtly so, it is not as if they are smacking it all over Wikipedia (which is what the assertion of "QPQ is a registered trademark of [company]" was doing four days ago). I just think if you want to know the ride, go to the horse's mouth. These are reliable, secondary sources in my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you regard the reference I found and read up on, Davis, Joseph R., ed. (2002). Surface Hardening of Steels: Understanding the Basics. ASM International. pp. 203–204. ISBN 9781615032501. Retrieved 16 February 2014. as a reliable source? That is not "a company pimping its products". You might notice I wrote it to say process and not product, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Who says the tags should not be removed, anyway (apart from you)? It is WP:BRD. I have done what I should and asked you to do, bring the discussion to the talk page of the article. Seems to me a bit of a steamroller if you just "Red Pen" (I would say blue pencil) anything you feel like and I am doing just what I should, responding on the article's talk page. Si Trew (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

who says the tags should be removed, anyway (apart from you)? Tags stay on the article until the concerns they raise have been addressed. And these have not. You have listed one source that may be an independent trade publication. That in no way counters the fact that the majority of the claims and content are sourced to company websites pimping their products and not reliably published sources with editorial overview and a primary focus on presenting accurate content and not promoting their wares. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One source is to a learned journal and another to a textbook. I asked you whether you thought they were reliable sources but you haven't answered that. Yes, the others are to companies, and would be primary if those companies were mentioned on the article. As it is, the companies are not mentioned on the article, never asked to be mentioned, and it was only by my searching that I found their articles on the process (not the product) which I believe is of use to readers of Wikipedia.

I do not have to justify removing content; you have to justify inserting it, and that includes tags. So I am quite OK to remove the tags, if I feel they are unjustified. That is what WP:BRD is about.

I still feel that these companies are at least secondary sources, I don't know how reliable they are in that sense, but they are better than nothing. There are two references which I gave above. This already is better referenced than hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia but you want to remove those references? I don't get it.

I take the approach, what would a reader coming here from the outside world want to find out about? Doesn't want to be sold the Quench Polish Quench process obviously, but might want to find out about it: with this addition to Wikipedia, will I make that more or less likely? So I added the references to make it more likely that a reader searching from the World Wide Web will be able to find out about it.

I should add in case you are in any doubt, I do not work for any of these companies and I have no personal interest in plugging one or another. I did work for Accelrys for about seven years, as a software developer in materials science, but that's about the extent of my knowledge of this: I have no personal knowledge or interest in any of these companies. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think here maybe is the nub of the disagreement between us: you regard "Quench polish quench" as a product whereas I regard it (having checked references) as a process. The end products of the process as such have no place in this article, I agree; and I haven't added references to the end products. The products are not notable, the process is. Would that be a fair summary? Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)