Talk:Glossary of quality management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please verify source and that this is not under copyright before moving to Wikisource. Thank you--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This looks rather copyvioish to me, as if it came straight from a Six Sigma book or something. A Google search on a few key words in the document reveals several results. I don't know if that's them copying off Wikipedia, or if it's Wikipedia and them using a common (copyrighted) source. – TTD Mocha! Bark! 22:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This glossary qualifies for inclusion

As a glossary for a specialized field, this glossary qualifies for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Here's the relevant policy, verbatim. I've bolded the part of the policy which pertains to this glossary and to its inclusion in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
  2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
  3. A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

Therefore, I've removed the "port to Wiktionary" tag from the article. --The Transhumanist 21:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't the terms be hypertexted?

i.e.

Fishbone diagram which has the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause-and-effect_diagram

[edit] Shouldn't the term of Cause and Effect Matrix be included...

into the glossary as well?

[edit] The term of Gauge Repeatability and Reproducibility may need to be included

I have seen the explanation at

http://www.asq.org/glossary/g.html

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/Talk%7EGlossary_of_quality_management_fd26.html"