Talk:Digital transform

proposed deletion
USer:Dicklyon must be kidding. Also [ .[[User:Lorem Ip|Lorem Ip]] (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case, feel free to give what you think "correct" definition of the quite common term. Lorem Ip (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Digital transform is not sampling, not at all. It is a permutation of a sequence of samples that are already collected. Once the sampling is done, anything can be done to the samples themselves, the data, and a digital transform is one of those things. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My perusal of the term on google book search didn't show it to be a commonly used term, or to have any defined meaning. There are lots of transforms, some digitally implemented, but no particular class that I can find called "digital transforms".  Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of Fourier transforms. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Which are not called digital transforms. Dicklyon (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, but in arriving at FFT or discrete FT, an intermediate step is made, that step called digital transform. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have to rely on the patent language "a first intermediate digital transform signal" and "a second intermediate digital transform signal", you're digging pretty deep. And they're still not "digital transforms".  It has meaning only within the context of that particular patent; or perhaps not even there, since the terms only appear in the claims, the intro, and the brief description, without definition or clarification of what they signify. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * From the search links posted here, it does appear to be a term that is used in literature. The question is, what does it mean? I have no answer but it seems a bit premature for an editor to put up a page without having an a grasp of that himself; ususally we use redlinks in that case. I've searched both articles that are linked here and neither contains an instance of digital transform. That's not good form for a disambiguation page. --Kvng (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The words do appear together in sources, but look at what they say; none that I find indicate that there's a topic there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why speaks about "topic"? I created a disambiguation page, i.e., a page which leads to different topics. The term is clearly used very often and clearly in different senses, hence a 100% candidate for a DAB page. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Whatever meanings I had in mind, all of them seem to be related to digital signal processing. So I redirected this page (and "discrete transform") there until experts figure out whether something sensible can be written about the subject. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still wonder why you think someone will be looking for "digital transform". Is there any reason to think that either a disambig or a redirect is useful?  I've found that deleting redirects is nearly impossible, so I don't see this as progress unless you can find a good reason for it.  Who would ever by looking for "digital transform"?  Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who would ever look for "Phocodontia"? This is not our business to decide. Anyway, how do you think I came to this term? Do you think I invented it? Or am I an unworthy person for wikipedia to cater to my curiosity? Lorem Ip (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you invented it, from a random bigram. Your link shows "digital-transform spectroscopy", "Digital transform processing", "The Digital Transform Machine", "Digital Transform Spectrometer", "digital transform mode", "Digital transform-based algorithms", "frequecy-digital transform", "Dolby Digital Transform coding", "the digital transform theory", "digital transform matrix", and verb forms like in "IP and digital transform television", but nothing called a "digital transform".  Or if you found it, show it to us.  There's the mistitled patent "Device for computing a digital transform of a signal" that's all about computing discrete transforms.  Many things are digital, but digital transform is not anything.   Dicklyon (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF --Kvng (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I do. He invented it in good faith, I assume. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kvng, I am not offended nor agitated, even when I am treated as a good-faithed ignoramus (which I am in 99.99...% of the sum of human knowledge). And sometimes I am on the other side of the fence myself. :-) Lorem Ip (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that redirects don't get deleted. It is also true that they don't really get in the way of anything. --Kvng (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed your "digital transformation" search link above.  Same deal there.  Two fairly generic terms, digital and transformation, sometimes used together in various contexts.  No sign of a topic among things like "analog-to-digital tranformation", "the digital transformation in the z-domain", "digital transformation to the desired scale", "digital-to-digital transformation equations", "a digital transformation of messages", "typical digital transformation of the data", etc.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete it?
I've proposed deletion, since it was de-prodded. Can anyone suggest a reason to not delete it, after seeing the discussion above? Dicklyon (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
I tagged the two referred topics as dubious, because neither is likely to every be referred to as "digital transform". I'd remove these, but then we'd be left with an empty article. Better to just delete it, no? Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. The meanings provided seem quite accurate and so the dubious tags should be removed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do they seem accurate to you. Did you look at the book search results, and try to find uses of these meanings?  I looked, but I didn't find... Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat my earlier observation that none of the 3 linked articles contain the phrase "digital transform". I am dubious. --Kvng (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And most sources that talk about such things don't mention "digital transform" at all. Besides being essentially generic and meaningless, it's also rather uncommon compared to "discrete transform", which is itself rare compared to "Fourier transform".  See  and  and  for some relevant relative frequencies. Dicklyon (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that someone decided we can't delete this article, the only remaining sensible choice is to put it back to the redirect to digital signal processing, since that's presumably at least sort of related to what someone is supposed thinking of if they look up digital transform. So I did that. And then it got reverted saying we need to talk about it more here. So here we go... Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the discussions at the AfD and above, I still think a disamb page is better than a redirect. If someone looks up digital transform, they are likely confused on what they want to research. Therefore, it seems to me to be better to give them a list of options to choose from instead of assuming which one they want. Although I agree they probably would want the one that the article currently redirects towards. -Atmoz (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Nobody has identified any reason to believe that anyone would be looking for digital transform, or if they were, what topic they might be looking for. There are no topics associated with this bigram in sources.  As I said before, if I'm wrong, show us. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)