User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2012 March

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!
Really appreciated. Especially after the previous few entries in my talk! BTW: I found the Gab valve gear article fascinating. Thanks again Jim1138 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the diff between a portal and a category?
If none, did you have a change of heart, if so, what discovery precipitated the about-face, and would you please share? Source of my conundrum:  here you argue against the socialism portal on Strasserism, and you argue for including the socialism category? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just in the process of writing a reply to that point, and would have posted it to Talk:Strasserism. So I'd prefer to adjourn to that location. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors
Hi Andy, I'm a bit confused with this. Can't you just click on an IP's address in the history to bring up their contributions? I think the "My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors proposal is just for a button that an IP can use themselves to easily show their own contributions?

Thinking about it, did you actually mean to post to the Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/[User] pages proposal? &sup;&deg;' Hot Crocodile  '…… +  11:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can only "click on an IP's address in the history " if I have that history page open. If I'm reverting vandalism, I've often done this from the article's last diff display which I reached from my own watchlist. I either haven't opened the page history yet, or don't even need or want to see the page's history. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When you say "last diff display", do you mean like this? &sup;&deg;' Hot Crocodile  '…… +  12:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, however I would then click Rollback to start undoing the vandalism. While that's cooking, I tend to go and check for their edit history and their talkpage for recent warnings. At this point I've lost sight of the link I need.
 * As it is at present (with my own script), if I open any IP talk page, I also get to see their contribs history on that page, embedded in an Ajax-filled sub-window. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see. Yes, sometimes rollback brings up their contributions, but not always. I do like the sound of having their contributions directly on their talkpage - very nice.
 * Unfortunately, I don't think the "My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors proposal is going to do that, my understanding is it will be just a tool for the IPs themselves. &sup;&deg;' Hot Crocodile  '…… +  12:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The Shrike
I have nominated The Shrike for speedy deletion. Richard75 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What sort of canvassing is this? Jehochman Talk 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * You're welcome. Persistent little so-and-so, weren't they! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Batman's utility belt
This probably won't get anywhere, but I've decided to go after Batman's utility belt as well, although only by tagging it for notability for now rather than plunging straight into AfD. Richard75 (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of LMS Sentinel 7164 for deletion
Thanks:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LMS Sentinel 7164 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/LMS Sentinel 7164 (2nd nomination) 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.  Sandstein  22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC). Tony May (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As a back-up position, could we merge this with LMS Sentinels 7160-3? Biscuittin (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they're quite distinct classes. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, it might be possible (if they're truly the same class) to describe the LMS one-off with the other industrials as the Sentinel BE locomotives (balanced engine, rather than the earlier central engine or double engine like the Radstocks). A problem is sourcing - the obvious ref is Hughes' "The Sentinel", but this is a two-volume set and I only have the first volume, which covers up to 1930. The locomotives and railcars only began shortly before this, and there's not too much coverage of them in the first volume. It's also a sought-after, thus pricey, book. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

TPH
I've come across 5 or 6 dubious deletion nominations by TPH purely by accident (the latest being expert-subject). That's a majority of all problematic nominations I've come across lately. Looking over his talk page there are many more. He really needs to acknowledge he has a problem with WP:BEFORE and needs to be more careful. Due to thesis writing I don't have the time to dig into this deeper any time soon, but if you're planning to start a RFC/U, I'm willing to certify it. Cheers, —Ruud 13:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As BWilkins has just threatened to block me for raising this at WP:AN, I guess I'll have to take it to RFC/U - although I don't have the time over the weekend, so it will probably be ruled out if the WP:AN thread times out.. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Requests_for_comment/TenPoundHammer
 * An almost-certain complete waste of time, but it seems to be demanded. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions
You don't seem to accept the idea that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Also, you seem to regard yourself as the sole authority on engines. A bit of humility would not come amiss. Biscuittin (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Humility is one thing, but your edits are way off in terms of accuracy. Let alone sources for them. Also how often do locomotive final drives incorporate reversing gear? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep claiming my edits are inaccurate but you never provide evidence of the inaccuracy. What about "RF11 spiral bevel reverse and final-drive unit". This was used in British Rail Class 03 and a number of other BR diesel mechanical shunters. If you deny that the RF11 exists then you'd better delete it from British Rail Class 03. Biscuittin (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just the point I made at Talk:Indirect_injection
 * It's possible for a statement to be "true" in isolation, yet to be inappropriate to include in a particular article. It's easy to do this by extrapolating from the specific to the general, which is what you're doing here. The 03 is not only a diesel-mechanical loco, it's a pretty small one. Yes, it does have the reversing gear included in the final drive housing (although it's many years since I worked on one), although even here it's hardly "incorporated", they're just both in the same box. This is fairly unusual for an epicyclic gearbox, as it's pretty easy to make those provide a reverse gear, but it's done in locomotives to give them equal ratios in each direction. As to article accuracy, I'd start by wondering why it doesn't mention the 03's fluid flywheel?
 * So if you'd stated "diesel mechanical locomotive", then there might be some merit to this, at least for the small ones. Yet "diesel locomotive" would be wrong, because the majority of those are diesel-electrics, and those certainly don't have a reversing gear. Some don't even have final drives. Nor would it be right for diesel-hydraulic locomotives, because I can't think of one of those (bigger than an 03) that has its reversing gear anywhere near its final drive. Yet you didn't even say this, you said "In a railway vehicle, it may incorporate the reversing gear." So that's "railway vehicles" - including electric locomotives and railcars.
 * As for accuracy, you can claim that the moon is made of green cheese and I'll find it hard to produce a ref that states, "the moon is not made of green cheese". I might find one that says it's made of basalt, but then you'll accuse me of WP:OR for claiming that basalt isn't a dairy product. Why did you add that steam motors were used for stationary or marine uses? Why did you claim that a Stuart Turner Sirius (which fits in my hand) is a steam motor?  No, I'll never find a reference that states plainly that it isn't, but that's because it's so far out a claim that it's not even wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of criticising or deleting my contributions, why don't you re-write them so that they comply with your exacting standards? Biscuittin (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you can write them faster than I can fix them. Also because I'm having to waste my time having to explain to you the need to cite sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be very keen to publicise your own faults but I don't see what this has to do with me. If you haven't got time to correct, rather than delete, then perhaps you haven't got time to edit Wikipedia at all. I do provide sources when I can, but it is not practicable to provide a source for every single word I write. Biscuittin (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at steam motor, the first sentence has a reference but the second sentence does not. Would you like me to add a "citation" tag? Biscuittin (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "stop disagreeing with my uncited additions, or I'll stalk anything you create and sprinkle it with gratuitous tags?" Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just pointing out that if you want citations for every single word I write, then two can play at that game. Biscuittin (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Early electric motors
Category:Early electric motors, 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:History of electronic engineering
Category:History of electronic engineering, 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Engineering articles and categories
So what aspects of my editing do you not agree with? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Your fondness for finding "something that can be done", rather than something useful, something positive, and something that adds to the encyclopedia. Have you ever read WP:IMPERFECT?  Your current dismantling of an entire category hierarchy because it's so far incomplete is entirely contrary to this.
 * Also, why are you suggesting that Bipolar electric motor, Mouse mill motor and Barlow's wheel be deleted or merged away? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So how do you know what I am fond of on WP? Maybe it is a chore? Maybe I have nothing else to do? Anyway... I try make sure that everything I do on WP is "something useful, something positive, and something that adds to the encyclopedia" (except for a bit of a play on my user page on occasion). And what do you mean by "current dismantling of an entire category hierarchy "? I have put up two categories up for deletion. that is hardly "current dismantling of an entire category hierarchy ". A lot of this comes down to what the community wants, rather than what you and I want. And yes I have read WP:IMPERFECT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting that Bipolar electric motor, Mouse mill motor and Barlow's wheel be deleted or merged. I have corrected my grammar at the Cfd. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE
This is a reminder that  is a magic word, not a template, and uses a colon, not a pipe.

You don't have to take my word for it - the brightly-colored warning message on the DISPLAYTITLE page is quite clear on the subject. — Paul A (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My mistake Paul, sorry for this. DISPLAYTITLE is both a magic word and also a wrapper template for it. When I looked at the changes, it didn't seem to be working for the italic formatting unless the wrapper template was used.  Per redrose's comments though, I think this was due to the page generator for diffs not supporting the formatter at all, rather than it being about the parameter handling. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Tubular bridges
I was looking at the Chepstow Railway Bridge article, and trying to work out how best to link it to the (very poor) article on Tubular bridge - but then I remembered that my knowledge of engineering techniques is, basically, zero. The Chepstow bridge article emphasises how innovative it was, but the tubular bridge article doesn't mention it at all. Presumably, it should? Is the key point the fact that the Chepstow bridge used circular-section tubes, as against square ones, or are there other subtle differences that I don't understand? Would you be interested in having a go at improving the tubular bridge article, so that they match up a bit better? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bridge articles are a pain. Many of the broad definitions are regarded as "obvious" to those within the discipline, so it's hard to find a clear citable statement of their definition. Suspension bridge had a dose of this a while back.
 * I regard tubular bridges as those with self-supporting structural tubes, where the carriageway is within that tube. It doesn't imply anything about tube shape. Such tubes must therefore also be box girders (otherwise they wouldn't self-supporting).
 * A box girder is a girder that is also stiff against torsion. This allows them to be used singly as bridges, where it would be most difficult to use a single truss on its own - it would be unable to resist torsion, so would be at risk of failure. Trusses are thus usually used in pairs, braced against each other. Cable-stayed bridges can use a single line of cables (the Wye bridge section of the old Severn Bridge is a local example), but these need a stiff tower anyway and some end up with very flexible decks as a result. Box girders are also built as rectangles rather than circular or oval tubes, because the easiest way to stiffen them against torsion would be complicated to build into an oval tube - although these days it would be pretty easy, should anyone wish too.
 * A "tubular girder" is any hollow girder, not necessarily a box girder. However common use of the term does appears to restrict this to either the girders of tubular bridges, or else any girders that are circular or oval tubes. These uses are quite distinct, and they appear to have arisen separately
 * So Chepstow railway bridge was a pair of tubular girders (and other parts), but it was neither a tubular bridge, nor a box girder bridge. It's really an intermediate stage between his Windsor tied arch bridge and his Royal Albert bridge. All three of these are tied-arch bridges (two are also suspension bridges, in how they hold up their deck), where the ends of a curved girder are restrained by another component in tension, so that the arch doesn't place its usual end-thrust onto the piers. They're not well known, because this has never been a widely used design (there's a cracking one in Hamburg).
 * I'll take a look at tubular bridge, but the Chepstow railway bridge article has never seemed that clear to me. It seems to spend more space of the first coverage explaining Stephenson's bridges, and all the types of truss bridge that it isn't! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hatcheting Thames Steamers Pages
Your removal of HMS Gannet picture without discussion is not appreciated. Since when is a naval sloop not a steamship? The article heading is "Thames River Steamships"; it does not mention civilian or naval categories. Many naval vessels were built on the Thames and rightfully could be included. Discuss, don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.6.12 (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There does seem to be a distinct Thames Steamer--the Salter boats and the Bovril Boats, in addition to the Coal Board Colliers.


 * A sloop may indeed be a steamship. However the article is on Thames steamships, i.e. those steamships working on the River Thames. Now unless the Royal Navy has recently declared war on Millwall, sloops might be better noted for their service on the Yangtse than the Thames.
 * I'd also remind you (yet again) that this article remains unreferenced and (unlike Thames barges) has yet to show that there even is such a thing as a distinctive "Thames steamship". For that matter, several of those illustrated here are steamboats, not ships, and work the Thames above London, not below. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I think you are splitting hairs. While I cannot remember the tonnage cutoff between boats and ships. ie around 500 tons, the article is an omnibus thing, meaning if it floats, and has a steam engine in it, and it has been built or worked on the Thames, either from Oxford to the Medway then it goes in. Tugs, lighters, bovril boats, naval, merchantile, pleasure--the lot. The width and breadth of steam vessels is one aspect of why this is interesting. Considering it was the busiest port in the world, the 160 year service of steamers is remarkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.6.12 (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The real question is, are Thames steamers notable?
 * There are steam boats and ships on the Thames. Same with many other rivers. There were also sailing boats and sailing ships. Same with many other rivers. Sometimes this gives rise to a distinct type, such as the Thames barge or the Severn trow, and such types will generally have the independent focussed coverage that makes them notable. For a vaguely-scoped omnibus article like this though, is it really demonstrating notability? Are there sources out there to support the existence of such an omnibus? Being less narrowly focussed, this is much harder to demonstrate. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A lack of sources does not equate to a lack of fact. Innocence until proven guilty. INstead of splitting hairs and hanging delete banners, why not add a few citations that you seem to love so much.

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Brewing problem. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Albums by recording & cover artist
Hi Andy,

Your wisdom has been invoked at with due reverence.
 * Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 19#Category:Albums by recording artist and cover artist

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Web design
Hi, I am part of the student group from the University of Hull working on the web design page. I noticed you had a lot of helpful feedback which you gave us a few days ago. We have made a few more changes on the page. Any feedback you can give on that would be really appreciated Nicola Witbooi (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Nicola, Yes I've been watching your changes. I'll take a look and post any comments I have. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-free image
Hi Andy, I'm curious about this edit in which you restored a non-free image to George Went Hensley. That image was discussed on Featured article candidates/George Went Hensley/archive2 and in on my talk page (irritatingly, we weren't able to keep the discussion of it all in one place, makes it hard to follow). Are you sure that its presence on George Went Hensley meets the NFCC? J Milburn seemed convinced that it didn't. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See discussion at Talk:Snake handling at present. The only NFCC issue I can see at present is that it's not discussed enough in the body text. There's also the "policy" that FACs can't have any NFCCs. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see now. But given that the article is currently at FAC where an image review has already been carried out, please discuss the matter with the reviewer before adding non-free images to the article. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Timing belt change
I added the section on visual inspection of the timing belt, which you then deleted.

Fair enough about the "Howto" angle; it was a how to statement and in that light didn't belong there.

Question about the oil contamination angle: I would have expected oil contamination to show up in terms of cracking/scrubbing of the belt rubber, chipping of the teeth, or changes to the inked logos, or for that matter "Hey look, it's got oil all over it." before it became a serious issue for the strength of the belt.

What would be the not-visible failure modes for an oil contaminated belt?

Mind you, I'm a mech eng with a life-long habit of owning decrepit old cars, so what I consider a visible change might not be what most people would see. Since one assumes this article is written by people who cannot distinguish normal aging from dangerous wear, from that point of view the advice is still bad.

Another angle for me is that since I'd probably do the belt change myself there's a good chance I'd mess something up in the process, so it becomes a risk-of-timing-belt-failure-leading-to-engine-death / risk-of-engine-death-from-poorly-done-belt-change tradeoff.

Lastly, the boys on the overhaul shop floor seemed to believe that valve interference only happened above a certain engine speed. I vaguely know that some of the fancier engines adjust valve travel on the fly, but there's nothing like that on the old beaters I work on so I don't buy that line of thinking.

If you're willing to share some wisdom in that regard, I'd appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.188.166 (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The trouble with oil contamination on rubber is that it's usually undetectable without very close inspection (i.e. magnifiers), removing the belt (which is generally considered to render it beyond further use) and also by a destructive test technique, such as simply bending it round a sharp radius. There's also the question of who ever checks such a belt if it's not already well beyond its lifetime? These aren't questions as to whether a belt needs prior replacement before the service interval, it's owners of junkers and beaters asking if they can skip a service interval. This is also a service interval that's pretty long these days. The first timing belt car I had myself had a 25k replacement schedule (Mind you, you could do it in 15 minutes on a good day with the right setting gauge and the worst job was half-draining the radiator. Make it an hour if you had to align the marks by eye). Nowadays they're often 100k or even more.


 * Belt failures are almost all caused by delamination between the rubber and the internal tensile reinforcement (a few are external sources, like impacts, rubbing parts or failed pulleys). This delamination can easily be caused by oil on the edge of the belt soaking in through the porous yarn and then causing internal delamination you've no hope of seeing. If you have a dead belt or two, then try peeling the rubber apart from the internal fabric. On many belts removed while still working you'll find this is quite easy in spots - that belt was already beginning to fail, but hadn't gone full width yet.


 * Oil also tends to make rubber fail under tension, rather than compression, so you might not even pick this up on the teeth wearing - although it used to be a real issue for old belts in the '70s, with less resistant compounds.


 * Of course there are simple tests you can apply that will detect some belts that are about to fail. However there are no tests you can apply that will reliably pass only a belt that has adequate service left in it (and I'd even include ultrasonics here). Passing the test is no guarantee, so change the damned thing when it's due, based on past destructive analysis of previous belts. Also buy decent belts that have been stored correctly and fitted carefully without pinching or bending them to fit them more quickly. A few engines have a known premature failure mode where they've been fitted by someone bending it sharply to pass a component or tensioner that ought to be removed and refitted instead - particularly where one-shot tensioners get re-used by being pried back and the belts forced over them.


 * "Interference engines" are of course a European plot to sell lemons to good old boys who should by rights be driving chain-drive V8s. Who needs an efficient combustion chamber design?


 * Valve thumping has nothing to do with engine speed. If the belt breaks, the valves stop dead wherever they are. One of them will be down, and it's going to get hit.
 * Minor valve impacts due to speed are caused by valves being lower than the pistons at high rpm. This is speed related, but it has nothing to do with belt failure. If it's a maintenance issue, then it's caused by tired valve springs that lead to valve bounce at high speeds. It can sometimes be caused by creep, where the valve or valve retainer has stretched and has much the same overall effect as a soft spring.


 * Very few engines vary valve lift according to conditions. It doesn't help much and it's difficult to engineer. If valve lift is available at any speed, it's generally best to provide as much as possible at any speed. What does change with conditions (mostly just engine speed) is either the valve duration, or simply the phasing (and thus the overlap) between inlet and exhaust camshafts. Duration is most useful, but it's a little complicated to achieve - usually a variable lever arrangement in the valvetrain between camshaft and valve. What's more common is to simply change the overlap of a twin cam engine by changing the camshaft phase. This can be done with a relatively simple device called a variator built into the camshaft drive pulley. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Discretion concerning deleted pictures
I came here to voice my concern that it would appear that you've been removing pictures (unjustifiably so, and usually without community consensus) and it would seem that a great many others agree with me. I simply would just like to ask you to remember that there are talk pages for a reason, and that there are often multiple contributors to an article who may or may not share your monopolistic view on article editing. If you don't like a picture that has been added, please bring it up for review by the community. Any given page will most likely have authors watching it, and would love to add their input as well. Respectfully, Khargas (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Diffs? Pictures plural?  Or are you just trying to stir up trouble? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you like a list of examples? I had figured you were able to remember the pictures you removed without discussion. If you're unable, I'd be happy to comply. Best, Khargas (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Diffs? Pictures plural?  Or are you just trying to stir up trouble? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

re Samblob
Yes! Eddaido (talk)


 * What? You accept that your edit summaries are uncivil attacks on another editor? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)