User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012 April

Talkback
-- Red rose64 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Viz characters
And why did you un-redirect them? Every single one I redirected has a.) no sources or only primary ones, b.) nothing but in-universe content, and c.) been around more than long enough to be fixed. I kept Fat Slags because I know a movie was made on it, and a couple others that had decent secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * TPH, Roger Mellie is a very well-known character and you redirected that article without discussion or thought, and then when challenged you still don't get why your action was inept, even while you have an RfC against you. Did you consider creating a List of Viz characters articles to merge articles to? It might be best if you were banned from Wikipedia for reasons of a lack of WP:COMPETENCE. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There actually is List of Viz comic strips - he should have at least redirected them there instead of to Viz (comic). Another demonstration of the sloppiness of TPH's editing. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This certainly seems a poor time to be doing such redirects (and why did only AD get a message? I rescued Mickey's Monkey Spunk Moped. Its not a great article, but its fun, and its harmless) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Scatman
Where does it say that all issues of non notability should be determined by consensus? I've never heard such a thing. WP:NALBUMS supports the redirection of songs and albums to artist if the song didn't chart and is lacking in sources, or if the album article has only a tracklist. That's the case for all of this (except the ones that charted in Japan, which I did not notice they had when I redirected). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
The Bushranger One ping only 17:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. When you recently edited Blue Flame (car), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mach 1 and HTP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

John Farey, jr
Hi. Thank you for editing the page and for adding the Rees Category link. I've tweaked the piece and added more in-line links. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It's just good to have such an erudite contributor adding to WP again. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Propane flamegun image

 * Please discuss at Talk:Blow torch whether to keep image Image:Aa Workman with flprmk2 01.jpg in page Blow torch. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, OK, thanks for the explanation in detail, I've deleted the link again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

no personal attacks
Your comment in Talk:Common_rail: "...you think that "direct injection" first began when you saw the bootlid label on a car in Gran Turismo". Please see the second point of WP:NPA and avoid making personal attacks in future. 1292simon (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Demonstrate some WP:COMPETENCE beyond watching video games first, and you might begin to have a point. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance 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. 1292simon (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Motor constants
I notice you undid my revision in brushless DC electric motor.

I changed the notation to subscript in accordance with motor constants. However in the meantime, I have also read Talk:Brushless_DC_electric_motor. You seem critical of the article, but I checked and there are in fact sources which write the motor speed constant using a subscript (example). So may I ask why you simply reversed the "whole" edit and not selectively? Also, why not correct motor constants if it contains mistakes? Druzhnik (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gasoline engines by model
Category:Gasoline engines by model, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 00:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance 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. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that you don't want to participate in the discussion so I'll just say, it's better not to discuss the contributor and rather focus on the content (but you know that already). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

JUNK Raft
Do you realise that JUNK Raft is a redirect to Junk raft? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't - it's a redirect to one specific section within junk raft, relating to a named vessel, not to the broad concept of "junk rafts". Please try to read articles before removing chunks of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it necessary to read article before editing them? Didn't know that... Anyway, in all seriousness, the category is not needed on the redirect because the article then ends up twice in the category, and the redirect name is essentially the same as the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The name is not the same for the two articles, the case is different.
 * Also the names are likely to have different lifecycles. If we rename junk raft to something else (as is currently up in the air at CfD), then JUNK raft should still stay under its current name. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But two entries in a category which differ only in the number of upper and lower case letters seems odd to me, not to mention being confusing to readers. Also, the junk raft article is not up for deletion and if the category is kept or even renamed we will still have the situation where there are two entries with essentially the same name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandal
I did go through them earlier and revdel everything which was obviously offensive, but I can see now that the remaining edits were also offensive references to Hillsborough so I've hidden them as well. Hut 8.5 19:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's a difficult issue, because there are some on Liverpool who will see any mention of it as an insult, but for this editor's edits, there was nothing there, even about Mike Jones (footballer), that wasn't a deliberate taunt. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I got rid of that edit. Gone now. Hut 8.5 20:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The City of Lost Children
Please review WP:RS, blogs are not to be used as sources. I removed the blog source you used and replaced it with an academic one. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:RS. Blogs are acceptable as references and may also be used as sources. Notability may not be verified by dependence entirely on blogs or other sources that don't meet the strict requirements of WP:RS, but this is not a blanket ban on their use in addition. Thanks for adding the additional Cohen reference though. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Review it again. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves I very much doubt the author of the blog you used as a source was the film in question. Not a problem finding the source, I loved that film when it came out. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also be aware you do not need to reach 3RR to be in violation of WP:EW. Your content is still there, it is now sourced to academic sources and there should be no further problems with it's inclusion. Maybe time to let it go? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As you are a steampunk fan you may enjoy this Put a smile on my face Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Excuse me, but how was my edit to Caitlin Moran considered disruptive editing? I admit that I didn't start a talk topic about it, but that isn't necessary for every edit that is inconsequential to an artical. I simply removed a portion that was entirely un-encyclopedic, irrelevant to the rest of the article, and merely quoting a tweet in its entirety as the near complete substance of the section. Granted, I forgot to summarise the edit, but that's no reason to be swing banhammers as flippantly as a Hammer Bro. FinalDeity (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It was typical of nearly all of your edits. Highly POV blanking of a section you obviously disagree with, with no justification or even an edit summary. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Jemima Khan
I did a major rehaul of the Jemima Khan page. Hopefully things flow much better. Some of the articles have been deadlinked though. AngusWOOF (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Through arch bridge revert
A tied arch isn't also a through arch? - Denimadept (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be - some bridges can certainly be both - but being a through arch doesn't make it into a tied arch, so it would be wrong to merge them as synonyms.


 * Both are arch bridges and both exist so solve a particular problem with the simple arch bridge. In the through case, to avoid the need to be humpbacked. In the tied case, to absorb the sideways thrusts within the bridge structure rather than the foundations. In many cases, a tied arch is also used to construct a through arch bridge. However what's the point here? Are we categorising individual bridges, or are we explaining bridge structural types? When it comes to types, then it's important to present this in a clear and unambiguous manner: the Sydney and Tyne bridges are "classic" through arch bridges with no tying. They're what we should use to explain the through arch bridge.


 * In the tied arch case, it's hard to find tied arches that are both simple and aren't also through arches - even through structurally they're pure tied arches. We can explain the principle most easily by showing simple, uncomplicated examples - like Windsor Railway Bridge or Lleida, even though these also have the typical "through" aspect. We don't need to emphasise that though - they explain the tied principle clearly and readers will receive the correct understanding as a result.


 * Both articles could probably benefit from expansion to highlight this crossover, but this should be a late, separate section. It's common by incidence, but it's not structurally important.


 * Tied arch also needs to illustrate that some tied arches aren't through arches. Particularly for the early Brunel suspension examples like Chepstow and Saltash. An article on lenticular truss wouldn't hurt either. WP's current content for Truss and Truss bridge is confused and contradicts itself, because it confuses the earlier Brunel lens, developed from the tied arch, with the later symmetrical Douglas lens that's a Warren truss with a more efficient profile.


 * Stanley Ferry Aqueduct ought to be included under through arch, because it highlights the point that early cast iron bridges that look like tied arches aren't carrying any tensile force - it's still a pure through arch.


 * An important type (for which I don't even know a good name) are the balanced semi-cantilever tied-arches like Fremont Bridge (Portland). These are handled poorly in the tied-arch article at present: they're not distinguished from the simple single-span tied-arch and their forces aren't explained at all. Worst is that they're confused with the visually similar untied through arch (like the Sydney), which leads to mistakes in the article like the inclusion of the Pennybacker Bridge, which isn't tied at all.


 * Clearly some work is still needed here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, okay, I give. I'd been thinking of the Fremont Bridge (Portland) and others on the Tied-arch bridge page, but I suppose there are others which don't fit.  There always seem to be exceptions.
 * But Chepstow Railway Bridge is a tied arch?? Doesn't look like an arch.  So  is wrong? - Denimadept (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Brunel's original Chepstow bridge was a direct forerunner of the Royal Albert Bridge. At Chepstow, he used a straight tube of circular cross-section; at Saltash, two curved tubes of oval section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Chepstow railway bridge is a "Chepstow truss". It's just weird. Weird site, early days when everything was an invention, it's a design that's pretty much unique. See User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2012_March for some past discussion.
 * It works by being an early example of Brunel's lenticular truss (as for the Royal Albert at Saltash), where a truss is supported at high level, with the deck suspended from this. The truss is somewhere between a very flat tied arch and a Fink or inverted queen post truss. The tubular girders were slightly arched, not straight - Brunel was already interested in flattened arches, post Maidenhead, and knew that using wrought iron rather than masonry would allow him to build such an arch by constructing it as a simple tubular bridge (i.e. just a beam), so long as he tied it before it had to carry its full load (the tying substantially increases load capacity over the plan girder). The ties are just about visible in photographs, so long as you look in the right place - they're draped in a catenary rather than straight. Like the Fink truss, they appear to be spaced below the main beam by posts (the two sets of vertical suspenders), so that this near-straight main beam is tensioned such that it's the tension member that has the most curvature, not the arch. However these aren't posts in compression, they're suspenders in tension - the unique part about Brunel's design is that these "posts" are suspending the deck as well as spacing the tension chains away from the girders. The "tying" of this arch is actually from the weight of the deck acting along the outer diagonal part of the tension chains.
 * It's not a great design. It's inefficient in how much it can carry relative to the weight of the upper girders. These girders have to be self-supporting under their own weight to permit construction, but they're never tensioned sufficiently to increase the load capacity of the finished bridge by all that much. In particular it's a very fine balancing act between train load (especially hammerblow) and not exceeding the sideways load (in either direction!) on the Chepstow pier. Although it has been lauded as an "efficient" bridge (in terms of material cost to span the gap) it never delivered much load capacity for this cost and was quite inefficient in terms of load for cost, for a span of this size. Even in its day, this load capacity was low and the bridge was over-complex for its span (the reason it was lauded was that any other design would have needed to be twice this span, in order to reach an abutment on the Chepstow side).
 * Saltash is a development of this. Brunel realised that a self-contained truss that was tensioned by its chains (in just the same way) but that could be pre- tensioned before lifting into place, allowed a far greater load capacity (as a constructed truss) relative to the cost of the girder (and its performance as a simple girder). Accordingly the arch of the main girder is far greater. Chepstow was a low-speed nightmare to traffic within a few decades of its construction and was replaced fifty years ago. Saltash is still operating today, without any important rebuilding.
 * With the availability of steel rather than wrought iron, we then see the Douglas lenticular truss appear. I don't know how this design evolved, but the end result is closer to a Warren truss that's shaped according to its load distribution, rather than Brunel's evolution of the tied arch. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! 8-)

South-pointing chariot
Why have you changed the images in he South-pointing chariot article. Previously, the page was composed harmoniously, with the images neatly occupying appropriate spaces. Now, after your edits, it's substantially messier. DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)  (Yes. I'm a Welshman too)


 * On your screen they might have looked harmonious, but this is the web and one can never assume what size a user's screen display is. On my screen (desk or laptop) they were too tiny to even tell what they are. The science museum photo is a crap photo, but it's pretty much all there is.
 * Now they're per WP:MOSIMAGES, without their size being hard-coded to a vain assumption about the user having a tiny screen. If you don't like the way it looks on your setup, change your account's defualt size for thumbnails from the setting under the "My preferences" | "Appearance" tab. If you object to this on philosophical grounds, take it up at WP:MOSIMAGES. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did try it with various screen sizes and shapes. What I said above was generally true. DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * THEN TAKE IT UP AT WP:MOSIMAGES AND USE ALL THE HEAVY BOLDING YOU WISH.