Talk:Image filter end terminations

Response plots
I admit to a slight cheat in the response plots. The plots I have produced using the Mathaei formulae do not seem to be right so I have resorted to calculation by network synthesis techniques. This, of course, is emphatically not the image method of design. The response plot I put in the article is this;  The plot I have using the Mathaei formula is;  This is obviously incorrect. The possibilities are:
 * The Mathaei et al formula is wrong (unlikely)
 * I have not correctly used the method (possible)
 * There are undiscovered errors in my spreadsheet (all too likely)

However, after spending some time trying to identify the problem, I have given up and resorted to direct network analysis. If someone else wants to try and unravel this I would be delighted to send them a copy of the Excel spreadsheet I used to generate the plots, just drop a note on my talk page if you want them.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert removal of hatnote-like text
re. The pseudo-hatnote is not appropriate. Even if it were properly formatted — – a hatnote is not the place for this information: see WP:Hatnote. The title of this article is not ambiguous. Composite image filter is already linked in the infobox and at See also. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, this is not, and was never intended to be, a disambiguation hatnote. So not complying with WP:HAT is a non sequitur.  If you don't like the way it is formatted, you are welcome to change it, but I feel that the overall subject that this article is a part of should be mentioned early on in the lead.  Deleting something because it is in italics is bureaucratic and unhelpful; a breach of WP:PRESERVE.  SpinningSpark 22:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A hatnote that looks like a hatnote but isn't a hatnote? If you want it mentioned early in the lead then mention it early in the lead. Deleting something that is badly-formatted, in the wrong place, and separates the reader from what they want is, actually, helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're making up your own rules. Pointing the user to a broader topic is obviously helpful and there is no proscription in guidelines to formatting that as a hatnote.  Just the opposite in fact; WP:LAYOUT has navigation header templates as item #12 of matter preceding the body and WP:NAV bullet #4 explicitly allows this formatted as a hatnote. SpinningSpark 08:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * . With respect, I'm not making up any rules. The guidelines for hatnotes are at WP:Hatnote. There is no guideline that allows for preliminary text that looks like a hatnote but isn't one. Anyway, let's move on: you'll see I've made a compromise edit. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't much care for your compromise. You've linked the page through a redirect which kind of hides where the reader is being taken.  That's a redirect because it's a page that should exist but doesn't, not a redirect from a synonym.  And yes you are making it up.  Did you not read the guidelines I linked to?  WP:NAV explicitly supports hatnotes for further information, broader coverage, and main articles.  WP:HAT is concerned with disambiguation hatnotes, which I have agreed from the start that this is not. SpinningSpark 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried to explain several times that there is no provision for preliminary text that is not a properly-formatted hatnote (or a navigation template). The guidance you cite suggests alternatives to a navigation template—this article already has such a template—but guidance at WP:Hatnote and at Template:Further and Template:Main makes it clear that further and Main are to be used at the top of a section and not the top of an article. I've tried to edit the article to further link to the article you want highlighted, but not to your satisfaction, probably because I am not an expert in the subject of the article, which you, I think, are. If our conversation leads to the rewrite of this article's lead then it would be very helpful to readers: it strikes me that the first para is the wrong way round, mentioning the article title at the end not the beginning. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)