Talk:Imaging particle analysis

Proposed merge with Micro-flow imaging
It looks to me as these are one and the same thing, but an expert opinion would be appreciated. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: proposed merge with Micro-flow imaging: Micro-flow imaging (MFI) is a trademarked name for a brand of dynamic imaging particle analysis system. Since it is a vendor-specific trademarked name for a product, I do not believe it should be merged into this general category. Rather, that article should reference this page as an example of this type of system Fsixtyfour 14:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsixtyfour (talk • contribs)

✅
 * Support merge. Calling something by another name doesn't mean that it needs to have a separate page - it could easily be accommodated on the same page as Imaging particle analysis. Even if it is a trademarked name (do we have evidence for this?), a trademark alone does not make it independently notable. The Sharma et al. (2010) paper doesn't refer to MFI as a trademarked term. Klbrain (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. However, I still do not believe it (Micro-flow imaging) should have a separate section, as it is just a vendor's version of Imaging particle analysis. And it is trademarked: see this link. They were first to market and did a great job of making their name be used as a term for the "technology in general" (hence all the journal references), but it really is similar to as "Xerox®" is to "photocopy". There are several other "dynamic imaging particle analysis" vendors whose products are used "in the biopharmaceutical industry to characterize subvisible particles from approximately 1 μm to >50 μm" Fsixtyfour (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)