User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 August

Physics
How much power does it take to raise an object at a rate of 1 metre/second? How much at 2? 10? Neglect air resistance, if you like. Power is the subject of force and velocity. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you re: content strategy
Hi Andy,

Thank you for defending the addition of my edit to the Content Strategy page to OhNoIt'sJamie's cut. I would like to include my addition to the content strategy page as I know a lot of people in our practice are interested in this topic and would need the reference. Yes, it should be cross-referenced in digital curation, but it is more relevant to the audience of Content Strategy. That's why I'd like the edit to stay there. I'd appreciate if my original edit could be approved. I'm relatively new, so I appreciate your helpful tips on how to post effectively. Thanks again - Erin


 * You're welcome. Unfortunately despite your best efforts here, it's already raised at the COI noticeboard: WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard  You're lucky, first day here, and already you get to see why the project is driving useful editors away like crazy. My apologies. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notification
I've posted an item regarding our dispute re: Content Strategy here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bugatti
I noticed that you had wondered my Bugatti revert in May 1, the reason was that you had put wrong name to Bugatti, the current company is Automobiles SAS, Im not sure the original company was with same name. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 04:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Three months ago and no diff? Is that the edit where you claimed that Bugatti was founded in Magdeburg?   Andy Dingley (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No I just mean that you had reverted wrongly http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bugatti&action=historysubmit&diff=426914373&oldid=426913609, I have never claimed Bugatti is Magdeburg, so when you fixed one thing you messed another one -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Magdeburg

"Unconstructive?"
Please review WP:RS, especially WP:SELFPUB, and WP:Further reading. Further reading sections are for stuff that otherwise qualifies as a reliable source. Weebly sites, being self published, generally do not qualify. Wikipedia does not advertise books, especially those that have to be sold on blogs. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a blog, it's a book. It is a perfectly reasonable book to include under a Further reading section (and I would note that you won't have claimed this as a reason to remove it until what will then be your third reversion.)
 * In addition to the book, there is also a web site that gives some indication as to its content. We would accept the book as a citation without the URL to the site, so it seems most strange to remove all of it, paper copy too, because you object to the URL format. The book is certainly obscure and few will have easy access to it - although within steampunk circles it's fairly well-known by name, especially amongst the seamstresses and the more neo-Victorian end of steampunk. I would note that your contributions history shows no knowledge of or interest in such matters.
 * The book could be said to be self-published. However this is not the same thing as WP:SELFPUB (you have actiually read the scope of this, I take it?). In particular, WP makes no criticism of the value of a book under the identity of its publisher.
 * Your sole reason for removing this book cite is the technical platform that the publisher chose to use for their web hosting. Such a criterion (and you have only the one) is pathetically simplistic. It exists because "blog content" is generally a poor idea as source material for an encyclopedia, not because Weebly affects the bytes as they're transmitted. Nor is this even a blog, by the way in which its content is used. I will assume GF and thus that you haven't actually looked at the site in question. After all, from your contributions history (which is almost exclusively the removal of links, based on pattern matching for their hosting platform) you'd have to have been very busy to have been doing so.
 * As the entire level of editorial subtlety in your editing seems to be a blanket removal based on web site implementations, I can't help thinking that you'd be most easily be replaced with a 'bot or script. No doubt a very small Perl script would do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was completely out of line to call me an SPA. I've been here since 2006, working on a variety of articles, this is just a recent project and I would not recommend a bot because I've already seen one article where a Weebly page did qualify as a reliable source under the guidelines.  Try actually looking at my contributions.  Also, not everyone does scripting.
 * Under WP:Further reading, one of the considerations for including a book in a further reading section is reliablility, as defined by the reliable source guidelines. The book is self-published, and under WP:SELFPUB self published sources are only included for claims by the subject about the subject.  Under WP:RS, self published sources are unacceptable unless they meet WP:SELFPUB.  The "Publisher" is nothing more than the sole author's webpage.  There is no real publisher.  You did look at the site, right?  Particularly the "about me" section.  Why, even the first page linked said that all the books are handbound by the (singlular) author.
 * By the way, I've taken this up on the most relevant noticeboard I could find - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And regarding your post on User talk:Vbsouthern: funny that you only decide to interact with this fellow only to contradict me after we come to a disagreement. What's that called?  Oh, right, WP:HOUNDING.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually that was a trail from the ANI Rapture thread, but I did happen to notice that it was your name. Either way, your interpretation of copyvios as theft is still wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 'WP:Further reading, one of the considerations for including a book in a further reading section is reliablility, as defined by the reliable source guidelines.'
 * Simply, No. I suggest you try reading WP:Further reading, not just citing it to further your point.
 * You are carrying out a large sequence of 'bot-like edits whose only basis is a pattern-match on a URL. That is hardly the highest achievement of editing. You might even note that I've reverted two of your changes removing this book cite, where it's in relation to contemporary neo-Victorianism, but didn't re-add it to two others where it was solely (and IMHO weakly) related to historical Victorian costume. The book is a worthwhile resource for contemporary costume, but not (again IMHO) for historical detail. This is the distinction between editing in the true editorial sense, rather than mindless rote work, which could just as well (if it were worth doing) be done by a script. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the two articles you've reverted me on, it's not actually being cited for anything, it's just an advertisement for the book. Also, did the section "Reliable" disappear from the "Considerations for inclusion of entries"?  It was there last I checked.  Waisted Curves does not by any means qualify under any of the following: "historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers."  Those are the additions considered aside from reliable sources.  And again, it was out of line to call me an SPA.  Would a bot have done the investigation necessary to find out that this other Weebly page was indeed the official fan site for this singer, and provided evidence thereof?  This was a recent project I've undertaken, and every little bit of work to keep this site encyclopedic (instead of, say, turning it into an advertising platform) helps Wikipedia.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

WQA discussion
Hello, Andy Dingley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sausages
Hi Andy; re - I was about to do the same but you beat me to it. My edit summary would have been
 * this is highly tenuous - the exact quote from the book (p.42) is '"Duck called me a 'galloping sausage'," spluttered Gordon.' - and is this website a reliable source?

-- Red rose64 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's too circular. Lots about Duck and Gordon, nothing about 10,000. Besides which, what would Duck know about LNER locos? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed: there's absolutely no mention of no. 10000 or the W1 class in the story concerned. But it's not me that needs convincing - it's . -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just starting to catch up with a 2-week holiday backlog (eek).
 * It's possible that Thomasfan402 was confused by the description of Gordon in LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3 and in the references behind that section: 'Gordon was based on a "hush-hush" prototype...' Here Awdry was referring to the prototype of the A1, NOT number 10,000 (and 'Hush-Hush' is, IIRC, Awdry's own description). As a serious railway enthusiast himself, Awdry may well have been aware of the 'Galloping Sausage' nickname for 10,000 and included it as a joke -- in fact, the more I think of it, the more likely this is; using an LNER nickname as an insult for an 'LNER' locomotive -- unfortunately, we will probably never know.
 * FYI: I do regard the http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/ website as a Reliable Source. While it may not be very 'professional' in places, it is essentially edited by one person (Martin Clutterbuck) but is 'monitored' by many very serious fans of the Railway Series books. By serious, I mean they are most likely as serious railway enthusiasts as either of you, and would be quick to identify where an identified prototype was incorrect. A 'Thomas fansite' it is not! Martin usually notes contributors too (see Gordon's page). It is probably more accurate than most newspaper sites, which are usually used unquestionably as RS's.
 * EdJogg (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Arduino compatibles


The article List of Arduino compatibles has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not a directory

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &mdash; RHaworth 20:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

CICS - no relevance for decades?
Perhaps you should do a little research before making such uneducated comments about CICS for instance. CICS has been around since 1970 and is still going strong and has a lot of relevance today for processing commercial transactions from thw WWW. You could say its making a comeback in the cloud computing arena (Cloud computing is just another way of using what is essentially mainframe technology). CICS incorporated features/solutions that the WWW has only just realized are problems today. It is still the #1 transaction processing system in the commercial world (if you exclude the rather "clunky" and error prone, & very insecure internet itself). See Wikipedia article See IBM  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.127.235 (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes dear, everything was already invented back in the 1960s and it was just better then on CICS / Multics / VMS / BSD or whatever OS your favoured religion ran on.
 * Now let us poor misguided fools get on with the next generation, while you sit there and enjoy your vintage IBM-built iPad / smartphone / clustered web server.
 * Was this in relation to Cloud or to OOP? I don't know which is more ridciulous: claiming that Cloud or ESB approaches are just CICS, or really in any way like CICS; or whether it's abotu Fortran's antiquated "art of the possible" has anything to instruct us on language design. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Source for "it is not known" statement
Hi, Andy. Earlier today I added a tag to a sentence in Hand grenade which reads, "It is not known if this type of improvised anti-tank grenade was ever successfully employed in combat." You removed this tag, saying, "If we could cite it, then we'd know it. The design is already cited."

I then removed the sentence entirely, since a statement that says "It is not known whether X" is saying more than simply "The person who wrote this sentence does not know whether X"—it is saying that no one knows (or, at least, that it is unknown to experts in the field). This kind of statement requires justification, such as a citation to a reliable source that says it is not known. The mere fact that the author of an article cannot find sources one way or the other about whether this grenade was ever successfully employed in combat is not sufficient justification to say that it is not known.

Now you have restored the sentence, using the edit summary, "Basic literacy seems to be a problem today." I am not sure what this means. Maybe I am missing something—are you saying that we have a source to back up this claim, which I am not seeing? —Bkell (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two statements asserted in this paragraph:
 * There was a design produced and publicised in period for an ersatz grenade. This statement is (AFAICS) adequately sourced.
 * It is asserted that it is not known whether this greanade was used in service.
 * The scope of 2. is neither that of one editor, nor of the total of human knowledge: it is the scope of this article and its current set of referenceable sources. This is a pretty lightweight statement to make. It is one of those few self-evident statements that we do accept without external referencing, relying on nothing more than objective logical inferences (which are not the same thing as axiomatic assumptions) and a universe of discourse that is entirely self-contained in this article. For once we can create such a statement within policy and without needing external refs.
 * This would be a different matter if it was claimed that the grenade "was not used" - that would require a reference, I think we agree.
 * If the statement was narrowed to "this editor does not know" it would become both POV and also simply too subjectively narrow to be of any interest. If it was broadened to claim that "it can never be known" then that too would need a reference (which would have to show that it was a class of unsolvable problems, rather than vainly trying to prove Popper's negative).
 * These are not the case though. This statement is bounded within the article and the set of knowledge known to it at the current moment - for that much, this lightweight statement is indeed self-evident.
 * The likelihood is that the grenade wasn't used - few of these British invasion panic weapons ever were, even by SOE later on. If the statement stated this, then I personally wouldn't have an issue with it, although policy probably insists that I ought. Removing it though is excessive - it would leave the question of its use entirely open. We do know more than this - we know (asssuming editorial competence and reasonable thoroughness) that the several sources considered don't show any evidence for it. That's not enough to claim that it wasn't used, but it is enough to note that absence of evidence. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that statement 1 is adequately sourced. I have never questioned that.
 * As for statement 2, I am certainly not saying that it should be broadened to "it can never be known" (which, as you say, cannot be proven) or that it should be flatly stated that it was never used (unless we have a reliable source that states this). But if the sources we have are silent about whether or not this grenade was used in combat, we should not infer that the answer is unknown—that would be inferring something that is not stated in the cited sources. It could be that the sources chose to omit information about its use or non-use for compositional or editorial reasons, for example. If our sources are silent about whether or not the grenade was used, we should also be silent; anything else would be an unsupported inference. That's why I removed the sentence. On the other hand, if we have a source that states that it is unknown whether this grenade was used, we can cite that source to support our sentence that says the same thing.
 * I have often seen assertions of the form, "It is unknown whether X," when the author really meant, "I don't know whether X." Often such a claim is not supported by a reference to a reliable source, and it simply means that the author does not know of any information one way or the other. But unless the author is an expert, this ignorance has little significance—and even if the author is an expert, we shouldn't accept such things here on Wikipedia, because we do not publish original thought, such as assertions backed by an author's claimed expertise. We also should not expect our readers to trust "editorial competence and reasonable thoroughness" here on Wikipedia, either—after all, we're just a ragtag bunch of volunteers. I certainly don't trust Wikipedia's editorial competence or reasonable thoroughness; I've read too many unsupported, biased, flawed, or outright wrong things here to be that credulous.
 * A true statement of the form, "It is unknown whether X," is a statement that X is an open question, and that kind of claim needs to be backed by a reference to a reliable source that says so. (The Wikipedia article about open questions seems to focus primarily on mathematics, but there are of course open questions in fields such as military history, though they might not be referred to using the terminology "open question.") —Bkell (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * So, how about this: If what the article is trying to say is, "Sources A, B, and C do not mention any use of this grenade in combat," then why not just say that? If these sources really are reliable, so that their silence on this issue is notable (i.e., they seem to be sources that would be likely to mention uses in combat if the grenade had ever been used), then let's simply state that fact and let the reader decide whether or not it seems likely that this grenade was ever used. Does that sound reasonable? —Bkell (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Tom! I really do wish someone would write better report generators. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Expertise
In this edit you implied that the only people who should contribute to articles are experts in the area of the article. Do you believe that in general or am I reading too much into your comment? Personally I think it is important for non-experts to evaluate articles and to contribute to them when the articles are not clear. Expertise and ability to explain something are quite different as anybody whose taken a class from a bad professor can attest to. I'm not nearly as prolific an editor as you are, but my modus operandi is to consume articles and when they don't make sense to me to try to figure out why and improve them so that they will hopefully make more sense to the next person. This seems to me like a useful and valuable check on the system. Don't you? Leopd (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are reading too much into that statement, not helped by the term "expert", and not even by the vagueness of what "edit" means.
 * Editing requires WP:COMPETENCE and if the edits are content-related, not just copy-editing, then they might also require some degree of expertise. This is still a lower standard than being an expert. I'm not taking an elitist line here that only a "select few" may edit, but all editors are required to do the legwork of research before hitting the keyboard. The opportunity that you can edit is no guarantee that any editor is yet capable of doing it well.
 * To look at the question the other way, your edit changed a well-known statement about induction motors because you simply do not understand, and evidently still refuse to believe, a behaviour of such motors that has been studied and clearly described for over a century. You then justified this by a home experiment using a different kind of motor. Such edits are nonsense and rapidly become harmful to an encyclopedia. Besides which, there's no need for it. There's a vast amount of source material out there on AC motors. If you want something readable, try an old book (maybe 1930s) because they took time to explain everything in great detail back then, as they knew they could not assume prior knowledge on this unfamiliar "modern" technology, and also the subtle complexities of motors were just simpler back then. Much of what I really know about electrical machines I gathered from reading 1900s books by Rankin Kennedy (look at Commons for some scans from these), several large series that go into considerable detail at a time when such motors were first appearing and there were many different approaches being investigated.
 * I certainly don't believe that an editor should make content-related changes to any article, beyond their own level of expertise. If you want to write about, or teach about, a subject, you must first understand that subject yourself. How else can you possibly write accurately? This isn't Citizendium and a demand for paper qualifications, but editors should at least read up their references before pontificating on the subject. I follow this myself - I don't edit articles on biology or chemistry, because I know nothing of the topic myself. Of course the ability to write is important, as is the further ability to write a tutorial as opposed to a novel. Yet these are never alternatives to subject knowledge, they're an additional requirement. Good editors for explanations of difficult content need to know both.
 * I see this as one of the big problems facing Wikipedia. There are editors like who know a lot about a narrow related field, but nothing like as much as they think. They then edit outside their narrow knowledge, refuse to learn anything new (because they already know everything) and cause havoc to fields that are near their expertise, but just outside of it. To an uninvolved admin(sic) they also apper to have "expertise" in all of the narrow fields too, so it's most difficult to highlight just what damage they're causing.
 * I see your modus operandi as flawed. It's a good idea to read an article and see if it makes sense, even to then try and improve it so that it does. However there's an essential step missing from between these two - the extra input from external sources. If you can't make sense of an article, then you can't make sense of an article! Thinking harder about it is unlikely to make it suddenly appear fully-formed from your own head. This isn't medieval philosophy or Swedenborg, the view that a whole cosmology could be created by sitting quietly in a darkened room and thinking about a problem. We now follow the Western scientific method: experiment, measurement, publication, repeatability. If an article is failing to explain itself, then it will usually need to bring in new content from outside WP to clarify. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer to policy. But your assumption that I made the edit without consulting outside resources is incorrect -- I even stated that I had discussed the issue with several experts before making the edit.  If you care to reconstruct one set of conversations, start here.  Moreover, I changed an important sentence from one with a flat-out fallacy to one that I believe you agree is technically correct but perhaps doesn't tell the whole story very well.  I see this as a clear improvement, because it was no longer _wrong_.   The fallacy I'm referring to is the idea that they can run faster than supply voltage that you corrected in this edit.  I still believe the sentence can be improved, and will propose a better version on the Talk page when I've decided what it should be, if you care to weigh in.
 * I appreciate your cooperation in making this article better, which it clearly is now. I don't appreciate your insinuation that my edits are destructive and ill-informed.  I can tell there was something wrong with the article because it is was inconsistent with other articles on the same topic (see for example Induction motor which states "their speed can be easily controlled"), and because I have WP:COMPETENCE in the area (my background is similar to yours -- applied physics turned to software).  I discussed the matter with experts, gained an informed opinion, and made the edit to remove the mistake. I'm not sure where the apparent hostility is coming from. Leopd (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Asking on Twitter" is hardly consulting experts. If something can't be explained adequately in a wiki article, how can it be done in a tweet?
 * Induction motors run at a non-variable speed relative to line frequency. Their speed is slightly reduced by slip, but not to such a degree that they are variable, or even by varying under load (to any extent, nothing like that of a DC or universal motor). If this speed is expressed as poles passed per second, then it's numerically comparable to the line frequency in Hz. Induction motors all run at the same speed. Some have 2, some have 4 poles, so their rotational speed might vary by the same factor, but they're still running at the same speed in terms of poles per second.
 * Induction motors are not variable speed. They can be used, with inverters, as part of a variable speed drive, but they are still running at a constant speed, relative to frequency. Induction motors may (by changing the stator wiring and thus the effective number of poles) have multiple selectable speeds, but this is still the same speed (in terms of poles per second) and even in shaft rotation speed they have a selectable speed, not continuously variable.
 * As to the "flat out fallacy", then I recall something of the sort, but it was in no relation to your edits.
 * As to hostility, then I'm being positively charming at present. I'm not allowed to be simply rude and I haven't the time at present to be scathingly sarcastic within the bounds of policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Zero carbon solar controller
I removed the references to SolarTwin that you added recently. We need reliable sources there. Otherwise that section is apparent OR. Joja lozzo  15:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted your deletion as being quite unwarranted. The section I added is poor, having inadequate refs and those that it does have are badly WP:SPS. By all means, work to improve this. Tag it as cn if you wish, but deleting the one section on this abyssmally poor article that has any basis in real deployed systems is not the way to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete the section, just sentences that referenced a commercial product sourced solely by its self-published web site. If there are no reliable references for SolarTwin then we should not be including it. By all means write about real implementations but not without reliable sources. Also, please leave the tag until there are proper sources. Joja  lozzo  18:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a zero carbon solar controller if it's not a Solartwin? Do any others even exist?  There are only four references in this whole article, zero carbon or not. The only content with any references is in relation to SolarTwin. If you want to claim there are controllers other than this, then it's not the Solartwin that's most in need of sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. I was not asking for sources for solartwin, but for PV powered ("zero carbon") controllers. Solartwin is just a pv powered controller. IMO the zero carbon tag is marketing fluff. Any controller can get its power from PV and have the same carbon-related characteristics (which are questionable). I removed any mention of solartwin and changed the section to pv power solar controller. Joja  lozzo  21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

GS38 test light photo
All the pictures on Commons so far show neon screwdrivers, except for one two=-probe type. I think you mentioned owning a real test light built to GS 38 standards, if you could upload a free picture of it to Commons, it would be useful in the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, mine's a skanky old thing and probably not up to current standards (I'm not a professional electrician, so I "make do"). My meters are to spec, because they generate numbers that I have to put onto paperwork. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pre-17th edition? That seems to be the watershed. Oh well. I'm also still looking for a better picture of a timing light for that article, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had it 20 years and it wasn't new then. 1950s maybe, with a new cable. Like I said, there's one maker that seems to have the market sewn up for the "standard issue" one that everyone (who has to worry about employer's liability insurance) uses. I can probably photograph a timing light, and I've got loads of scans of liquid rheostats for a talk I have to give on theatre lighting. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Liquid rheostat pictures would be great. One of the electrical foreman at my former employer would tell stories of his apprenticeship, when one of his regular tasks was to fetch a couple of buckets of seawater to top up the rheostats in some drive. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Spelling at mine railway
Hi Andy. I'm not clear why you changed "connexion" to "connection". Both are correct and the original author used "connexion" which, whilst less common, is technically more correct as it derives from connexio. I can't find any guideline that prefers either. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If I wasn't the sort of person who keeps a full 13-volume next to his desk, I wouldn't even know that the x spelling was still considered to be current. For its use today, I only see it as a contrived spelling for the brand names of advertising consultancies and the like. There I'm sure it's just an affectation to a new variant spelling, not any knowing attempt to preserve tradition. There's no reason for this to be counted an incorrect spelling (the OED even gives it as the primary, which did rather surprise me), but it's dusty with disuse. In a linguistic article, or in some context, I'd have no problem with it. This article though is unrelated to issues of language. It should first of all be simple and accessible. Because connexion raises this issue in the first place, I don't see it as simple. As I cannot see a single real drawback to connection (it's correct, it's long established, it's commonplace, it even avoids an issue with WP:ENGVAR for the US) I would favour it.
 * I'm not going to argue the point though if you want to restore it. However I would make a note, probably as an inline comment, that it was a deliberate choice just to try and avoid this issue recurring. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Arduino compatibles for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Arduino compatibles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Arduino compatibles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. &mdash; RHaworth 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Arduino compatibles wider issue of wikipedia credibility
I've dropped a note on User_talk:Guymacon about the issue you raised on the arduino compatible afd proposing that we figure out how to start a wider discussion on the topic. If you're interested in doing that, maybe take a look? &mdash; Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Build light indicator
Hi Andy,

Thanks for adding to Build light indicator, but could you please provide some sources for your additions? Without any citations, those two paragraphs look too essayistic. Sorry to bug you if you're still working on it :) --Accedie (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just delete them if it's a problem. I'll be rather surprised if the whole article lasts more than a week (why we don't have coverage on continuous test). The idea is still too new for there to be any of the almighty WP:RS on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I think they're good and not worth deleting. I think Accedie just feels more comfortable with citations. ;-) Thanks for helping us Andy. Neither of us are actual developers, so it's good to have your input. Steven Walling &bull; talk   20:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My last job wasn't as a developer as such, but as full-time build manager for a 20-developer Java shop. This involved Cruise, Hudson (as was) and an awful lot of such build indicator gadgetry. We did have big problems with the mismatch between what it meant to developers (information was good) and what managers or customers could see on the wall (don't let it show anything negative).
 * My first indicator gadget though was an old floppy disk drive mechanism (an 8" !) that ran up a flagpole if the build failed (using the head position stepper). I'll try and find some old photos of it. I'm also working on a growling furry panda (toy with movement and a voice box, and an Arduino added to make a nabaztag-like thing) that could act as one too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the topic itself is definitely notable enough. I might do a bit of rewording/copyediting to make that section look more encyclopedic, if that's okay with you, Andy. And it would be awesome if you could find that photo (or take a picture of your growling panda indicator) and upload it to Commons! --Accedie (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Categorization (Ejection seat)
Ejection seat is in Category:Ejection seats which is in Category:Aircraft emergency systems which is in Category:Aircraft components. Therefore Ejection seat shouldn't be in Category:Aircraft components - or have I missed some subtlety of WP:CAT ? DexDor (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is about eponymous categories (which is under WP:CAT somewhere specifically).
 * There needs to be a nav path from aircraft categories to the ejection seat article, I think we both agree. However users, especially non-editors, are confused by categories and find it hard to navigate through them. For this reason both the lead article for a cat, and also the cat, (i.e. Ejection seat and Category:Ejection seats) should both be categorised under the major navigation categories, which would be the path through aircraft comnponents or aircraft safety systems. If, as we often do, we minimise the categorisation, it should be the eponymous category that is removed, not the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
You've driven me from the Avro Vulvan article. Good luck in driving off the other regular editoprs.Nigel Ish (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Grow up. I raised one point, which I see as an entirely reasonable question, whether the answer is right or wrong, and now you're going off in a flounce. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hexamine fuel tablet
"Perfectly valid point, and some of us clearly have higher expectations of camp cooking than others." Alright. Like something powered by propane? natural gas? or is there something around the same size that makes simmering easier?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An ultralight penny stove, made from a beercan and running on alcohol fuel, can be adjusted to simmer. The Trangia burner, my usual choice for lightweight "cooking", as opposed to merely tea-brewing, can be adjusted down to a simmer. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying and I'm not going to revert the edit. However, the hexamine fuel tablet is fuel only and to me is Worst-case scenario because of it's toxic properties, small size and long shelf life.  However after thinking about it some people may want something like this for camping.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm camping, I carry a tent and so the weight of a stove (usually gas) is neglible. However mostly I walk for the day. I want tea out, so I take a light stove. I don't want anything that leaks, gas is bulky, so I usually take a hexi stove. Its big problem for me is that I can't turn it off, I certainly can't relight it later (an extinguished block is in no state to) and it's relatively minor that I can't simmer on it. However if I was lightweight camping, I'd be using dehydrated food for weight and this really needs to be simmered for a time without roaring its head off. You can't do that on a hexi, without pre-planning and cutting blocks in half. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)