Talk:Prototype

Industrial design Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human–Computer Interaction (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction articles

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Untitled

Under Design and modeling, The "counter-intuitive idea" sentence should either be updated or removed because it's ambiguous.

Yes, if it's ambiguous, it needs to be deleted or fixed. But what is ambiguous about it? It seems intuitive to me that "do X by itself" will be faster than "first do W, then do X". How could I make it less ambiguous? What else do you think it might possibly mean? --68.0.120.35 22:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it is not so much ambiguous as pretentious management twaddle. Greglocock 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

While this is a long way from being a decent article, I don't think a merge would be helpful, but perhaps it is more that I think the types of prototypes need separate articles - this seems to rant on about show cars, which are very far from prototype cars, these days. Greglocock 06:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge into either article. The language used to define '“prototype'” and “artifact” in the Metrology section is good stuff. Further, the term “prototype" is odd enough that people would look it up by directly typing the term into the search field. They shouldn’t have to hunt around for relevant text imbedded elsewhere. Greg L (my talk) 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposeing it because from what I could see, it didn't rant on about show cars, despite someone's opinion. Drakonis 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are at least two merge proposals. So your smartass comment may be out of place. or not.Greg Locock (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit

The paragraph: "It is widely believed that the kilogram prototype standard will be replaced by a definition of the kilogram that will define another physical constant (likely either Planck's constant or the elementary charge) to a defined constant, thus obviating the need for the prototype and removing the possibility of the prototype (and thus the standard and definition of the kilogram) changing very slightly over the years because of loss or gain of atoms."

should be updated as the Australian science group CSIRO is currently making a new prototype which will replace the International Prototype, made as a perfect sphere of Silicon. The new measurement will be made using the number of Silicon atoms in a kilogram.

Here is a link to a news article on the sphere to be created. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/making-an-exact-difference/2007/06/14/1181414466901.html and here is a link to the CSIRO's own news article on the subject. http://www.csiro.au/news/PerfectKilogramMediaRelease.html

It looks like there still has not been a change to the definition but the point still stands that we can point out that there are changes being considered. I've drafted a new paragraph as a possible edit: It is widely believed that the kilogram prototype standard will be replaced. There are two likely replacements. One is a definition of the kilogram that will define another physical constant (likely either Planck's constant or the elementary charge) to a defined numerical value, thus obviating the need for the prototype and removing the possibility of the prototype (and thus the standard and definition of the kilogram) changing very slightly over the years because of loss or gain of atoms. The other definition is using a system that finds the amount of force needed to counteract the pull of earth's gravity on a one kilogram artifact. Here is a link that can be used as a reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/worlds-roundest-object-perfect-sphere_n_3804690.html Any thoughts before I make the edit? Lnk2128 (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Computer Science?

I think we have to be more discriminating in terminology. "Computer science is the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation..." and not related to specific schemes of programming languages. A better wording might be "computer programming" or "programming languages" instead of "computer science"

There are several shades of distinction in computing-related field. Again to quote wikipage on computer science, "The practical aspects of computer programming are often referred to as software engineering." There is difference between coding and computer science theory as well as trade-school level curriculum and university level CS curriculum.

Factual Dispute of Computer Science Section

The paragraph discussing alpha and beta software is inconsistent with Software release life cycle. Specifically, the former states that alpha software is "the first version to run" and that beta is "for testing of the entire software."

Advantages and disadvantages

This section uses grammar that is confusing and ill written. Someone should fix this to reflect a more clear and polished look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.161.185 (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Images, Anyone?

This article might be greatly enhanced if only a few more pictures are added, but as of September 3rd 2009 the only image is one of an old hatchback. Invmog (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot model question

Is a pilot model a prototype? In the history of tanks, pilot models were fully functioning but built of ordinary (not armoured) steel. They would be the first examples built and used for testing. And on a not unrelated note. What of wooden mockups built of aircraft before the design in ordered into production. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, but yes. In automotive we have things called bucks, which are made of polystyrene foam, plywood and hardware. They are used to evaluate ergonomics, serviceability, and assembly access. tThey are perfect examples of prototypes. Greglocock (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bath.ac.uk reference

The bath.ac.uk reference has been non-existent for five years, and the Internet Archive doesn't have any non-404 record of it. 173.38.209.9 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prototype vs. Pretotype

A Pretotype is a term describing a pretty low cost dummy item that pretends to be an object whilst lacking noticeable core functionality. The definition is not exact but rather vague - you create it upfront of a real prototype to avoid major errors and save costs. You can evaluate it's look and feel, and you can further "role play" its functionality including finding out more about its use cases and haptics. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Texas Instruments, DLP Cinema Prototype System, Mark V, Paris, 2000 - Philippe Binant Archives.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mechnanical and electrical engineering

The sentence "Builders of military machines and aviation prefer the terms "experimental" and "service test"." refers to a Military article of 1918 - how meaningful is such an old reference?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner Stauffacher (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reviewing first image

In my opinion, the pictures used of the Boise signage are a poor example of a prototype, as the first just looks like a plain public information sign and does not obviously appear to be a prototype or effectively describe what a prototype is. I can't think of any right away that would work better, and I would love to hear others' suggestions before making any changes. 42-BRT (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]