Talk:Fire test

Images
The article appears as a promotional paper for the underwriters labratory the way it is set up. Can we include pictures from other fire tests not necessarly conducted in this manner and de-emphasize this? Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The pictures are overemphazized. It is more of a how-to right now. Kilmer-san (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan on editing this article in regards to (1) the "how to" nature of the information conveyed in the pictures, (2) the excessive wording of the captions should be incorporated into the article's text, and (3) the extraneous pictures which do not contribute materially to the understanding of the article's content. Comments? Kilmer-san (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue i have with the pics aside from a poster for UL, is that they are publishing results of a test, and it appears to me to be against WP:Original research, a clean up / reorg would be welcomed i think. Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * UL is a non-for-profit organisation and they are not seeking to be in here by any means. The Commons category on the topic holds more pix that aren't necessarily from UL. Without seeing actual testing, your understanding of it is much reduced. One of the biggest travesties to me is that in building construction, engineers and architects get to make judgment calls on such matters without ever having designed or built any assembly and then seen how or if it works on a furnace. That is actually rather dangerous and they don't even know it. Showing such pictures is a very useful thing and providing relevant details makes it come to life. Listings are public domain. Manufacturers as well as trade organisations routinely publish pictures of this nature. By virtue of passing a test and getting a listing, the whole thing is already public domain. --Achim (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not intending to edit based on the UL issue, just the nature and WP:OR are enough. Kilmer-san (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it will look better? I'd just say don't delete useful stuff. --Achim (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue today to me is more of that an undocumented and unpublished images of a paticular concrete assembaly at high temperature is being described in full with some test results via the images. That to me is original research and should be removed. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The pix for the most part are from commons, which is very much geared towards including media files in other Wiki languages and projects. The criteria for commons is hardly that they had to be published let alone copyrighted elsewhere first. In fact, that is what gets pix deleted from Commons. If pictures are published elsewhere first and the uploader admits this, the picture will either be deleted or the uploader has to provide permission from the owner first. Also, as the pictures led to certification listings, the subject matter in general and the design in specific is inherently public domain. And since you like Ottawa, as do I, I'll point out some really good subject-related pictures from that town. I can also point out that, for some time now, an industry association refers to the Commons pix dealing with passive fire protection. I am not a member of that outfit and have never attended a single meeting. Best regards, --Achim (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could not the pictures be from a private unpublished report given only to a client which certaintly doesnt make them 'public'? theres no proof to either scenario. The full report which states the observations and results here is needed in the wiki article for referencing. The pictures and their headings certaintly discuss test results without the reference to the report which they are based and this information comes from. And with that I still feel these are currently presented as original research. Provide reference to the full report which describes these images and ill certaintly back off calling these original research. Ottawa4ever (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence can be seen here and in the UL Online Certifications Directory. For the company, punch in Nelson Firestop. Under keyword punch in CMP. That gives you all the testing done that is shown here and then some. Just to clarify, the test report is not inherently public domain unless published by the submittor. Listings are inherently public domain. Published literature is also inherently public domain though it may be copyrighted to prevent re-distribution. Commons pictures are public domain, regardless of whether they show the goings on at a fire test or not. Commons pictures come with a known Wikimedia licensing scheme. Have you ever uploaded a picture to Commons? You get to pick the license from a dropdown menu. If you don't, your picture won't make it. If your picture was previously published elsewhere under copyright and that is found out by Wikimedia, the picture is deleted from Commons - fast. Best regards, --Achim (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, My concerns are associated to the description how the images are used (the explanations below the photos), they are used in such a way that combining them is synthesis and original resarch to describe a full test (albeit without referencing). You could remove (alter) some of the description and conclusions from the images so its not reading like results, and perhaps downplay the analysis presented. Adding a few documents as refs help, but each description should be referenced. Cheers Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to tapdance around trying to fit your interpretation of the matter. Commons does not have an original research prohibition. Commons exists in large part so pix can be used from there to explain things in Wikipedia. Looks like you just learned that fact because at first you had a problem with pictures being original research or maybe advertising for UL. So how about this: Why don't you re-word it and I'll look to see if you have wrecked the matter or improved it? Maybe you can make it better? I trust since you have opinions on these things that you know the realm, which means exclusively this: that you have designed passive fire protection products, designed test set-ups and passed some tests that resulted in ratings? --Achim (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does have an original research policy, and that must be followed. Also if material cant be sourced - it can be removed within wikipedia. If i were to make changes this article this is what i would do; The images can be used however in such a way to illustrate, 1) the heating of any assembaly ( i think one image is only necessary, maybe two) and 2) that a fire test is often followed by a hose stream test (again one image is fine not several). Within the text, mention can be made and soucred that typical fire tests following any fire curve or other simmilar exposure and text regime (ASTM/UL/ ISO) should have the assembaly pass the hose stream test afterwords. And of course mention in the text that a rating is typically supplied to an assembaly based on its perfomance after a fire test with a suitable reference. With those changes we condense and have everything referenced without OR as well as perserving some of the images form this test. That of course says nothing of the other types of high temperature testing out there that can be described, but that can be made to expand the article at a later date by those keen on the subject. These changes sound good to you (and any others reading)? Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you designed a single passive fire protection product, designed a single fire test and passed it such that it led to a listing? --Achim (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ottowa's interpretation. And Ahering, you know that no editor has to have any particular expertise or experience in the subject matter of the article they are editing.  Kilmer-san (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not stopping him. But I'm sure he can answer the question for himself. --Achim (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont think a direct answer to Achim's paticular query in this discussion improves the article, Wiki is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit- experienced or inexperienced. Back on topic, Im leaning towards Cmp images 7(furnace), 10(a test in progress), 13(hose stream) for inclusion, One worry i have though regarding 10, is that theres quite a few individuals in the photo, Im assuming however that these photos had people's permission to take? (personality rights issue) otherwise there is an alternative image of the test in progress which could be cropped. Cheers Ottawa4ever (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, basically for both of you. And absolutely, you don't have to pass muster as someone who knows a topic, let alone has one shred of experience, before opining about it on here, getting someone else who similarly has no idea to agree and everyone is happy. So go ahead. --Achim (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)