Talk:Panjandrum

Common Def.
The Wikitionary definition of "panjandrum" is "A self-important or pretentious person". Some disambiguation (a hatnote, perhaps) is needed to inform people of the non-military connotations of the term. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, after not quite eight years, about time. It's taken me two hours now to brush up on the basics to create a hatnote, so since there's only 168 hours in a week (unless the government changed it), it'll probably be a while before I can figure out how to create a disambiguation page, so I welcome (beg) someone (anyone) else to step in and do it first. GcT (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My hatnote was deleted, inexplicably, so I put it back. The Wikipedia article on "panjandrum" should not misleadingly discuss only the obscure, obsolete, failed military invention, when the primary meaning of the word is far different.  One is likely to encounter a reference to, say, Vladimir Putin as a panjandrum (or, for that matter, President Obama or Donald Trump: pick your poison); and while the image of Putin as an obsolete failed experimental weapon is a charming metaphor, that's not what is meant.  I still can't figure out how to create a disambiguation page, but wiping out my provisional hatnote is not the solution.  Please discuss.  GcT (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added a link to the wiktionary article for the meaning of the word. ( Hohum  @ ) 12:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * So far as I understand it, Wikipedia avoids dictionary-definition hatnotes (WP:TRHAT seems to back that up). A disambiguation page often starts by giving a basic dictionary definition in passing, but disambiguation hatnotes at the top of articles are onlyfor ever links to other Wikipedia articles. There are many one-word Wikipedia articles that have alternate dictionary meanings, but if there are no relevant articles to point to, we don't list them.
 * The article already has a half-solution to this, in saying "For the origin of the word "panjandrum", see Samuel Foote." - that could easily be reframed as "For the word describing an important person, see...". The link could also be changed to The Great Panjandrum Himself, a book based on the same text, and that article (currently a stub) could mention the coinage of the word and its later meanings. --McGeddon (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, McGeddon (and of course thanks, User Hohum). All that I have been looking to get done for these past couple of days, about this Panjandrum article, is that Wikipedia not be misleading -- so, for the article to not even mention that the word, as currently used, means something other than what the article is about, is misleading.
 * -- I would indeed prefer, and I hope everyone else who has chimed in concurs, the reframing that McGeddon proposes, as it would be much more clear; except, darn it, that the word, as generally used except with reference to the obscure military failure, does not refer to an important person, but to a "self-important or pretentious person" (which is kind of almost the opposite of an authentically important person, which fundamental distinction should be recognized).
 * GcT (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (I just fixed a couple of grammatical mistakes in my above note, of 03:44, 18 September 2016) GcT (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and make those changes. Both Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster both give "a powerful person" as their first definition, for what it's worth. --McGeddon (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I feel, with a sense of wonder, perhaps awe, and maybe even a boost to my nugatory self-esteem, that I have succeeded in collaborating with you all in improving the encyclopedia.  GcT (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Calculation
Before the start of the calculations, I was sure that cheaper and more profitable with the position of the thrust would be to put the entire powder charge in the center of the wheel, we only provide horizontal thrust. I was sure of it. But remembering the course of secondary educational school, the theorems of sines and cosines, the formula of reduction of corners, I got a General formula for calculating the moment of force applied NOT TO the CENTER BUT TO the SUPPORT, for any number of engines. As the value of the force and the radius for the theory doesn't matter, I got the ratio of the angle to the horizon for each engine. It is simple: Moment=force*radius*(1+sin α). The angle for the first engine : α=0+0*360/n The angle for the second engine : α=0+1*360/n The angle for the third engine : α=0+2*360/n

For Excel : α0=0, α1=α0+360/n, α2=α1+360/n, ... :) Sin(α*(2*PI/360)) It remains only to choose the number of engines and summarize the results. The result was for me unexpected: No difference between just placing the powder charge in the center or on the rim -- no. The moments are conditionally divided in pairs through the centre. The sum of these pairs is equal to 2. The sum of the moments is the same in both cases and equal to the number of solid rocket motors.

So in the end, what we get in these calculations ? It seems to me that in the movable, horizontal center, you can fit more powder charge for traction. It is very good that a good German engineers do not put their efforts to this page of history. Seregadushka (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Careen vs career.
Somebody has objected to my replacement of "careen" by "career" in the article. Quoting the text:

"...the rockets on the right wheel failed and the weapon careened off course."

Referring to Wiktionary:

Careen: 1. (nautical, transitive) To heave a ship down on one side so as to expose the other, in order to clean it of barnacles and weed, or to repair it below the water line. 2. (nautical, intransitive) To tilt on one side. 3. To lurch or sway violently from side to side. 4. To tilt or lean while in motion. [from late 19th c.] ... Usage notes The "move rapidly" senses are considered by some, especially in British English, to be an error due to confusion with "career".

Career: To move rapidly straight ahead, especially in an uncontrolled way. The car careered down the road, missed the curve, and went through a hedge.

And I'd emphasise that the event discussed was in the UK, so British usage is appropriate.

However I have no intention of getting into a dispute with somebody convinced that he knows better. MarkMLl (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You just proved that it should be careen. It swerved all over the place (careen) not just went straight at full speed (career). (Hohum @ ) 21:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)