Talk:Efficiency

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Engineering Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering 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.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was cited as a source in a U.S. court decision, Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consol. Independent School Dist., S.W.3d, 2005 WL 3116298, (Tex., November 22, 2005). See Wikipedia as a court source.

I feel that the individual efficiency pages will define efficiency as they use it without us needing to make a note here. If anyone feels differently, leave a message here or on my talk page. --Danaman5 19:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page doesn't need to fully define each usage of 'efficiency', but it should offer enough information on each that people can figure out which of the many links here is relevant to them without having to check all those pages. I think the current version of the page does a reasonable job of that. --Calair 23:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

h — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.59.247 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda bizarre for a court to cite a disambiguation page, isn't it? If an internal link referred them to this page, they might have wished to change the link to point directly to the intended article. Ewlyahoocom 01:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it wasn't a dab page back then (but I don't know in which article the content they cited is now). Sandstein 04:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the current version as of 11-22-05. Mostly a dab, but it also offers a general definition, and it looks like that's what was cited. See here, and case summary here - definition of 'efficiency' seems to have been important to the case. --Calair 04:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, now I understand: they wanted a definition and didn't have access to a dictionary -- thank gawd Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia or anything! Ewlyahoocom 06:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "technical terms" are in the form "Subject Efficiency" or "Efficiency (Subject)", with "Efficiency" meaning the same thing in each case, but being applied to a different subject. Wiktionary only gives two definitions of Efficiency (1. The extent to which time is well used for the intended task. 2. The extent to which a resource, such as electricity, is used for the intended purpose.) and (about) the same two for Efficient (1. Making good, thorough, or careful use of resources; not consuming extra. Especially, making good use of time or energy. 2. Using a particular proportion of available energy.). It would be reasonable to give this important concept its own article. The purely disambiguation treatment makes efficiency seem like an overly-complicated nonsense-word that can mean anything to anyone. It is a solid abstract concept. However, the limit is that there doesn't seem to exist a science that deals with the general abstract concept of efficiency on its own. What do the particulars have in common? Efficiency being expressed as the ratio between useful and un-useful, the ratio of relative usefulness, (simply) error, the statistical difference between the desired and actual performance or behavior of a system or object. Erudecorp ? * 18:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Inefficiency" is just the negative aspect of efficiency, and does not require a separate list of the ways in which things can be inefficient. I would merge that short piece into a new section of this article. BD2412 T 04:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections? Going once... BD2412 T 00:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is now done. BD2412 T 20:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]