User talk:Constant314/Archive 1

What Wikipedia is not
Just been looking over your recent work in attenuator (electronics). This is good stuff, but I have a couple of comments. Firstly, most of the component calculation information is probably better off in the individual articles for specific attenuator circuits. Indeed, there seems to be some duplication. You could put a summary in the attenuator article and use the main template to link to the details. Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be a textbook teaching the subject and lengthy formula derivations are getting close to being in breach of this. You might want to consider whether some of your material is more suitable for the sister project Wikibooks. Wikibooks can be linked into a Wikipedia article with the Wikibooks template.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  12:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * thank you for your comments. I will consider them carefully, but maybe not until tomorrow.  Merry Christmas and thanks for the help and advice in the past.Constant314 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy holidays. I have removed the examples and derivations.  The article should be much less like a text book now.  As for where to put the information, I have pondered this and come up with a dilemma. There is a lot of overlap between T-pad and pi-pad.  It is not a matter of effort; it is just a question of how to organize the information.  Should it be in two or three places or should it be in one place with links to it in other articles?  The problem with having it in two articles is that improvements, error correction, additions may be made in one article and not the other.  So, I'd rather just put it in one place and attenuator looked like a good place since it treats T-pads and pi-pads equally.  I got advice on this from Dicklyon who suggested " Don't make a new article that overlaps the other two; it's better to merge all into one of the existing ones, move it to Impedance matching pad or something like that, then convert the others to redirects. "  I thought attenuator would be a good candidate for something like Impedance matching pad .  As always I appreciate your comments.Constant314 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dicklyons solution is workable, but personally, I like to see the details of specific circuits in their own articles. The general article is less hard going for the reader that way.  Another possible approach is to write the common material in the template namespace and then transclude it into both articles.  This would solve your problem of maintainability since any change will automatically be reflected in both articles.  If you go down this path, make sure the first line of the template is a heading as this will make for easy editing of the section.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Can you point me to an example?Constant314 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at Talk:Aboriginal Memorial you will see that there is a GA review going on. The review can be seen on the talk page, but is actually on a different page, Talk:Aboriginal Memorial/GA1.  If you look at the talk page in edit mode you will see that the review page is transcluded on to it by writing the page between double curly braces like so  .  Note that the review can be edited as if it were a section of the talk page because it begins with a heading.  In the article space, pages which are to be transcluded in are placed in the "template" namespace.  In those cases the namespace "template" can be omitted as "template will be assumed if nothing is specified, see for instance Heartbreak Hotel which has a list of Elvis Presley singles at the bottom of the article which also appears in many other articles.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I understand that. Is the page to be transcluded just an ordinary page?  Constant314 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, any page can be transcluded on to any other page, but it is the convention to put the page to be transcluded in the template namespace rather than the main namespace because the latter is reserved only for self-contained articles, not fragments.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Numbering equations
I have a question about numbering equations. This is normally done in text books so that you can easily refer to a particular equation, yet it does not seem to be the style for Wikipedia pages to have equations numbered. So my questions are: 1. Is numbering of equations undesirable? 2. Is there a preferred way to number equations? 3. Is there an article that uses numbered equations that illustrates the practice? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my questions.Constant314 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An interesting question, which I thought would be easy to answer. First, I looked at Manual of Style/Mathematics; drawing blank there, I went to WP:WikiProject Mathematics and picked a few featured articles and good articles from the list on their page, to try to find examples of equation numbering. No luck. I will leave the "helpme" in case some one else can answer; also, I will post a note on the WikiProject's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know of an article that uses numbered equations, but the templates EquationNote and EquationRef can be used for that purpose. You may want to ask at WT:WikiProject Mathematics on whether equations should be numbered - personally I'd try to avoid numbered equations if at all possible. Huon (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There's also NumBlk which lets you layout a line containing a formula and number. -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To see this all in action, take a look at Poisson summation formula.--LutzL (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Equation numbering is described in Help:Formula. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that—with the new MathJax—anyhting appearing outside the math tags will destroy the new formula centering feature. That means that (unless the numbering is done in the math itself) numbered equations will remain left justified with the number on the far right, whereas unnumbered equations will get centered. See indeed Poisson summation formula. Ugly. - DVdm (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Indentation, numbering or equation bullets: In many cases, an equation is merely indented by a lead colon ":" (or two "::"), while numbered equations would imply an expectation of mentioning the equation numbers in other text. Unfortunately, the math-tag text is often heavy, dark, bolded text and looks "unprofesssional" for extra numbering/wording, such as "where x is the angle of incidence" or similar. For numbering, I would recommend simply placing an indented plain-text number ":1.&amp;nbsp;" in front of the math-tag for equations which will be mentioned in the text. Lists of equations should generally use asterisk bullets (":*") to allow some to wrap as two math-tags on two lines. However, beware how the math pages are the most difficult to update, often reverted with bickering or complaints by other editors, and hence, the math pages are some of the most backward, cryptic, or awkward of all WP articles, with excessive technical structure and too little explanation of the related concepts for general readers. Those pages also tend to "dog-pile" tangent topics as crammed into over-large pages with excessive obtuse abstract wording, rather than move the related tangent topics into smaller concise subpages as often done with mainstream topics. If you are a teacher or have a degree in mathematics, as I do, then I suggest working on math pages at Simple English Wikipedia, to clarify concepts for general users, and then if someone complains why the WP math pages are so convoluted, unkempt or confusing, then direct them to read about a clarified topic at Simple WP instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. If anyone has more comments please continue to post them.Constant314 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic vector potential
I'm not familiar with this notion, but perhaps the following reference will help. (I see what you mean about the cost of these books! But we're in luck . . ..) Many years ago I bought a book called "The J & P Transformer Book" by Martin Heathcote, first published in 1925 and now in its 13th or so edition. This book belonged to and stayed with the company where I worked, but marvel of marvels it's gone into the public domain, all 950+ pages of it, and I was able to download all of the 12th edition (if you google "J & P Transformer Book" you'll find this as the second result):

ftp://ftp2.epman.org/epman/epman/portal/yde/The_J_P_Transformer_Book_12E.pdf

In the first chapter you'll see quite-complicated, thorough phasor diagrams (these have flux and voltage and currents etc all on the same diagram). The pdf version is a bit marred by poor resolution of these drawings (most seem adequate), but check out Appendix 7 "The use of finite element analysis in the calculation of leakage flux and dielectric stress distributions" where you'll find some really fancy math and physics. . . div and curl and all that good stuff. Ditto for some of the other Appendices.

Is this the sort of thing you're after? I hope this helps. . . Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Constant314. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AConstant314 enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * Thanks Constant314 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your works?
Your wrong. Just a hint, there's no such thing as dielectic. You may mean to say dialect, its primative and reworked of others hard work. Please remove your applied mechanic otherwise I will have you prosecuted. I know what you intend to do and it's After the death of Christ not DC and information collected has been passed to the authorities that links the whole organization of the revoltation of the time. Zap! Good luck Ayresnick93 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Signature test
My sig Constant314 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering
 Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all electrical engineering related articles.

We are just starting, so there are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; feel free to participate as much or as little as you like:

You can use Outline of electrical engineering or Index of electrical engineering articles as a starting point.
 * Tag existing articles on their talk page with the WikiProject Electrical engineering template.
 * Starting missing articles in the electrical engineering area.
 * If you want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
 * If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

SchreyP (messages) 08:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)