Talk:Tamper-evident technology

Further Copyvio

can be found here: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Tamper-evident_-_Seals_and_signatures/id/5505504 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinithehat (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 November 2009‎ (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to tamper-evident technology. No such user (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamper-evident → Tamper evidence – Article titles should be WP:NOUNs. "Tamper-evident packaging" would perhaps be a little narrow when the article also covers seals, markings and pure information, so suggesting "tamper evidence". McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose this article is not about evidence of tampering, it is about technology that indicates tampering readily and making it evident. tamper-evident technology would fit WP:NOUN. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, much better call. --McGeddon (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving to tamper-evident technology, because Tamper evidence sounds to me like evidence of tampering with evidence, witness tampering, or tampering in sports. bd2412 T 15:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support tamper-evident technology per above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits

The links from the see also section which I removed appear elsewhere on the page. Our policy on this at WP:SEEALSO explains that "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." The revert was done clumsily. My addition of a wikilink and key fact with a citation were both removed. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shiftchange: hello; thanks for posting here. The links in the "see also" section are indeed mentioned, but most if not all are in the navigation box at the very bottom of the article, not in the article itself. Since the box pertains to packaging in general, I believe highlighting a few tamper-evident packaging systems would be nice for readers. That being said, I would like to hear your opinion on this specific point :-).

Second point: I think the fact you added was fine, but the lead might not be the best place for it (the content you provided is probably too specific for a lead). What do you think? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 13:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you but we have our policy to follow. Ideally if you feel the linked topics are significant then the links should be written into the article. You can try to convert your feelings on why you believe that should be highlighted directly into prose for the article. We always want prose over lists. I can help out to do that over the next few days. I am perfectly happy with moving the sentence I added to the lead into the body under the Computer systems heading. It is a bit specific. I did notice that the lead was very short. We need to extract some key facts from the article, preferably from each section and summarise that into the lead. I want to include something about block chain (database)s. Did you have a particularly keen interest in this topic? - Shiftchange (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all of this works for me. I will be away from my computer for a few days; I will look into this at the beginning of next week. Thanks for your reply! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 14:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially useful sources (esp. INMM)