User talk:Glrx/Archive 12

Trivia - most impressive job site
I visited TRW (a credit rating company) back in the 1970's. They had a disk farm, probably IBM 3330's, about 50 or so of them, taking up half the room, an IBM 370 (not sure which one) and an Amdahl (IBM 370 compatible) mainframe, which was "air" cooled, with a clear plastic front that allowed a person to see an large array of gold plated horizontal pyramid/tower shaped cooling fins for each of the chips on a large vertical plane. There was a monitor that displayed the current state of the automated "load sharing" between the two mainframes, a very expensive version of what you see with task manager on Windows today. The most unusual item in the room was an IBM 3850 mass storage system (nearline storage), which was a honeycomb of cylindrical cartridges, retrieved and replaced by a pair of mechanical arms that moved up and down on vertical tubes which in turn moved left and right to move the entire assemblies. The actual read-write stations were tubes at both ends of the honeycomb. They had a demo program that shuffled the cartridges around in the honeycomb. It moved at an incredibly fast pace. Maybe a protective cover was an option, but I never saw one on TRW's 3850, and I could easily imagine a malfunction or an "angry" computer hurling cartridges across the computer room at 100 mph. I somewhat regret not taking a job there, but pay for work on mini-computer operating systems was better, which is what I did in those days. You can do a web search for images of this stuff if interested. Rcgldr (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I visited a friend working at TRW (electronics) in the late 70s. Hi security, locked doors, the whole nine yards. At the time, I knew about the Caltech Rose Bowl prank, but I didn't find out her boss was one of the perps until he had left for the day. Sigh. Glrx (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverted at 2N696
I'm hoping you have sources for this material and will put it back, but the cited source didn't seem to support any of it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I copied some text from Fairchild Semiconductor and read the source at CHM (which I thought was used as a ref for the Fairchild paragraph). Added ref to CHM in both articles. Glrx (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Re Talk:2N696, have I convinced you? In any case, we should meet some time, as our interests appear to overlap about 90%. I'm near the Computer History Museum; you? Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * . I've been looking for more refs, and RL keeps getting in the way. You can convince me of just about anything. Certainly the 696/697 are a pair. Roehr, Switching Transistor Handbook (3rd, 1963), page 307, gives a list of "Preferred Silicon Switching", and the first entry (sorted by JEDEC number) in "High-Speed Medium-Current NPN" is the 2N697; the 2N696 is not listed. The hFE at 150 mA is listed as 40 min and 100 max; the 40 is greater than the 30 binning. I haven't found my old Fairchild binders (I may have tossed the datasheets or only keep the IC datasheets). But the journey has tickled a lot of other issues. I don't think the 2N696/7 used epi, and it may have been before thick oxide to mask diffusion. Roehr pp. 18–19 says mesa transistors had the emitter dopant vapor deposited through a metal mask. It sounds like "cross-evaporation" uses a metal mask (shadow mask?) to image both the base metal stripe and the emitter metal stripe through the same hole. The stripes were so the die could be mounted on the header between the B and E terminals, and the bonding wires could be parallel. I haven't found a description of the mesa etch. I think it is to minimize Ccb, but wonder if it improved the edge-exposed junction. (And then there's the wild hometaxial 2N3055 where the mesa etch provided access to the base.) Glrx (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's deeper than I've been investigating. I got the Sporck book (signed) and the Malone book.  Sporck is confused, putting the beta divide at 60.  Speaking of the IBM deal, he wrote, "We defined two products—the 696 and the 697. They wanted what we called the 697 because they wanted a minimum gain of 60. We defined the 697 as a minimum gain of 60 hfe, or whatever you want to call it. The 696 was 30 to 60.  And in those days getting a gain of 60 was not easy. We made a lot more 696s than we did 697s just because of the impurities and all the limitations on gain characteristics, and we chose Gordon's product."  The original ad puts the divide at 30, and as you found, the min for the 697 was raised to 40 at some point. Dicklyon (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * https://sites.google.com/site/transistorhistory/Home/us-semiconductor-manufacturers/western-electric-main-page see section on Bell 1956 symposium. Bell technology shared with Shockley, and T8 took it to Fairchild. Glrx (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Spot welding
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Spot welding&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Pomona Envisioning the Future
Hi

Sorry, I was being a bit blind there lol Chaosdruid (talk) 13:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I make a lot of my own goofs. Glrx (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

West Africa Ebola virus epidemic
Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...''The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing'' thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Consistency in B-tree analysis
Hi, you described your recent edit Special:Diff/872709259 in the B-tree section as 'make h consistent' – but 'h' is never used in the article except in that section, so it's hard to tell where is the inconsistency that you removed.

Anyway the edit itself does not seem consistent at all. According to Tree (data structure) as well as Tree (data structure), the root node having height zero means the root node is a leaf. Hence the height of the tree is zero (a one-level tree with the root node alone) and the whole analysis of the best and worst case height becomes irrelevant.

Possibly you meant the depth of the root node – but that one is zero by definition, so having it among assumptions seems redundant and a bit confusing.

IMHO the only thing that really needs explanation here is that 'a height of a tree' is not a number of levels of nodes, but a number of branches in the path from the root node to the deepest leaf node, i.e. the maximum number of 'steps' between the levels. In other words, a height is one less than the number of levels.

BTW, as Tree (data structure) informs, an empty tree is by convention considered as having the height $-1$. Which surprisingly agrees with the formula for a maximum number of entries:

Best regards, CiaPan (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the root node? Is it (A) a single, possibly null, POINTER to a NODE? Or is it (B) a NODE that may have 0 to $n = m^{h+1}-1 = m^{-1+1}-1 = m^{0}-1 = 1 - 1 = 0$ records/keys (and 0 to $m$ pointers)? The article has statements such as "The root node’s number of children has the same upper limit as internal nodes, but has no lower limit." That suggests the root node may not be a POINTER because a POINTER has only one child.
 * For case (A), the root node (at height 0) can carry no records. In this case, the "root node" is not a NODE. The article should be referring to the "root" rather than the "root node".
 * For case (B), the root node (at height 0) can carry $m&minus;1$ records before increasing the height of the tree. The terminology "root node" makes sense. A root node that is also the leaf may have 0 to $m&minus;1$ records.
 * Thus the article seems to be case (B).
 * A couple days ago, I reverted a change to article because the latter part of the section explicitly has the root at h=0. My edit comment should have said "Nov 16" rather than "Nov 18".
 * I looked at the section again, and it has the formula (which I changed)
 * $$ n = m^h - 1 $$
 * If I solve that formula for $h$, I get
 * $$ h = \log_m(n + 1) $$
 * If $h$ must be an integer, then
 * $$ h = \lceil \log_m(n + 1) \rceil $$
 * NB: this equation does not match the first displayed equation in the section; it does not have the trailing $m&minus;1$. My fix makes the solution match the displayed equation. It is also the same issue that Ronilbhatia was trying to fix.
 * If $&minus;1$, then I get $n=m&minus;1$, which contradicts case (B). For case (B), we want $h=1$. My fix made the first formula consistent with the second formula.
 * While it would be nice if the formulas were total, I have no problem with the restriction $h=0$.
 * Glrx (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's lots of words, alas I could not make much sense out of them. The question wheteher a root node is a node or a pointer and how to recognize that, seems completely void for me. When someone says 'node' I assume he means 'node'. And when in doubt, I'd use the definition of a node to make sure. IMHO using a definition is a much shorter and more reliable way than applying various interpretations and seeking self-contradictions in the article...
 * Also 'fixing' suspicious formulas to match dubious claims doesn't seem a reliable way to make a good, mathematically consistent article.
 * Anyway, the main problem with your reasoning, both in your modification to the article and here, is confusing the notions of node's height and depth. I pointed you the Terminology sections in corresponding article. They contain definitions, and it follows from those definitions that the expression 'a node at height zero' is equivalent to 'a node without descendants', so 'a root node at height zero' (with 'a root node' equivalent to 'the top node') means 'a root without children'. And that establishes the tree's height $n > 0$, which in turn makes the whole following reasoning on minimum or maximum $h = 0$ irrelevant.
 * So, I finally decided to resolve ambiguities and inconsistencies by myself. I started with the inequality
 * $$n\le n_{\mathrm{max}} = m^{h+1}-1, \qquad [1]$$
 * which is a solution for a recursive relationship
 * $$n_{\mathrm{max}}(h+1) = m-1 + m\cdot n_{max}(h) \qquad [2]$$
 * for a completely filled B-tree ($h$ entries in the root node plus $m − 1$ subtrees), satisfying
 * $$n_{\mathrm{max}}(-1) = 0$$ for an empty tree, and
 * $$n_{\mathrm{max}}(0) = m-1$$ for a single-node tree.
 * The inequality [1] resolves to
 * $$h \ge \log_m{(n + 1)} - 1, $$
 * hence the minimum height possible for a given number $m$ of entries
 * $$h_{\mathrm{min}} = \lceil \log_m{(n+1)}-1 \rceil. $$
 * Similary, the formula for a minimum number of entries with $n$ children required in each node (except the top-most one) is:
 * $$n \ge n_{\mathrm{min}} = 1 + 2\cdot (d^h - 1) \qquad [3]$$
 * (one entry in the root node plus two subtrees satisfying the relationship similar to [2], hence the term in parentheses analogous to [1]).
 * This simplifies to
 * $$n \ge n_{\mathrm{min}} = 2\,d^h - 1$$
 * and resolves to
 * $$h \le \log_d \frac{n+1}2$$
 * hence the maximum possible height
 * $$h_{\mathrm{max}} = \left\lfloor \log_d \frac {n+1}2 \right\rfloor. \qquad [4]$$
 * Despite [3] not working for an empty tree ($d ≥ 2$), [4] makes a reasonable output of
 * $$h_{\mathrm{max}}(n=0) = \lfloor \log_d (1/2) \rfloor = -1.$$
 * Done. With no artificial assumptions and unnecessary limitations.
 * Here is a diff of the above results applied to the article: B-tree revision 872998284 vs. 872709259. Please kindly verify.
 * Best regards. --CiaPan (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate your recent edit to Requests for adminship/Marcus Qwertyus 2. That is what I was trying to do but did not have time to work it out at that time. I left a message on cyberpower678's talk page in case he had time before me to make the correction. as it is, I came across another closed RfA in similar disrepair and ask if you can have a look at it as well. It is Requests for adminship/SwisterTwister and I thank you in advance if you can. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * beat me to it. Glrx (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your revert
Dear Glrx, We are working on the Fourier theory, Hilbert transform, analytic signal, and discrete cosine/sine transform. I had added some advances in these fields in wiki pages, however, those changes have been reverted by you by giving reasons "apparent, self-cite", and I thing you are right that I have done addition and modification related to my area of expertise, where we published research papers in peer reviewed journals (e.g. Royal Society, London). Now, my question to you is: How can we add advances in the area where we work? Does wiki policy not allow to add scientific information developed by self?

Please, let me know how to add information related my research work in wiki pages.

Thanks and regards Spushp (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are not journals where the latest research news is mentioned or published. Generally, the topics covered in Wikipedia should be from reliable secondary sources. If some research topic makes it into several secondary sources, then other authors have shown interest in the topic and evaluated its merits. That's not the case with primary sources such as journals even if those journals are peer reviewed. Somebody can publish peer-reviewed articles even if the results turn out to be wrong later or if the results have little interest to an encyclopedia reader.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your research. WP:REFSPAM ("Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work,"). Generally, adding citations to one's own work is a poor idea. One needs to have a healthy perspective to do it, and most editors do not have that perspective. If I look at your contributions, their primary goal seems to be to advertise your work rather than improve Wikipedia. Yes, you may edit topics that you know and care about, but keep the focus general rather than specifically about your research. That means using secondary sources rather than primary sources. If you think your work belongs in Wikipedia, then propose the change on the article talk page rather than inserting into the article directly.
 * Adding phrases such as "Fourier-Singh analytic signal" to an article shows your interest is promotion. Searching for that phrase on Google Scholar produces one hit: your paper. A search for "Fourier-Singh" produces 6 hits, one of which is your paper. It is not a common term, and your use of the term sounds in advertising and promotion. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * I volunteer here to improve the encyclopedia; I'm not here to blow my own horn.
 * Glrx (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Glrx (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Color difference
You have reverted my edit. But formulas are not equal. I gave evidence in the talk: Talk:Color_difference KyberPrizrak (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Rejewski
I saw your revert of my addition of a link regarding Rejewski and enigma; I see there must be some laws behind it. But how about linking this content: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4640685

It's the same article, but at an official site where it's published. Is it okay? Vlad Patryshev (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Linking to an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work is illegal. See WP:COPYLINK.
 * You linked to a copy on a Google Drive. It is unlikely such a copy is authorized.
 * There is no problem when linking to an authorized copy by the publisher.
 * The external link you added is already cited as a reference in the article. Consequently, it is redundant.
 * Glrx (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Can you please clarify your comment on my talk page? I'm unaware of having added any links to unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. Thanks. Nealeyoung (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply at User talk:Nealeyoung. Glrx (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for catching that. [Feel free to delete this once you've read it.] Nealeyoung (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cartridge (firearms), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annealing ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cartridge_%28firearms%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cartridge_%28firearms%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Fixed in the next release." Glrx (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

mail

 * re: Talk:IEEE 754

I can't figure out how to send you mail, so I can forward the note I received. Gah4 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The email does not matter. Neither you nor I can vouch for the validity of such a release. Furthermore, such an email is worthless unless it comes from the copyright holder, which is IEEE. The chairman of a committee is not a proper agent of the IEEE. For WMF purposes, IEEE would need to issue a release through WP:OTRS. Glrx (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Vincent Lefèvre says yes, David Hough says yes, but you still say no? Vincent Lefèvre also restored many links that I removed, as the linked-to pages had obvious copyright notices. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Linking to a draft is an absolutely clear copylink violation. Read the talk page section, go to the draft, read its copyright notice, and parse the limited publication right. Members of the committee only have a limited right to publish to further the development of the standard. The public is not involved in that development. Nowhere does the notice give the committee an unlimited right to publish the draft.
 * What copyright authority does Hough have? Does he have a release from the IEEE that goes beyond the limited right to publish stated in the draft? Until Hough has that, Hough has nothing. Same for Lefèvre; his doubt that he signed a release means nothing. Lefèvre certainly had the opportunity to read the copyright notice on the draft; why does he think he can ignore it now? And the draft is not just his work, but the work of many. Why does Lefèvre think he can publish the work of others without their permission? The drafts and the standard are works for hire for the benefit of the IEEE. It is the IEEE's copyright. When I contributed some text to a W3C standard, the contribution had to be vetted as copyright free. W3C has the reverse problem: they do not want a contributor raising a copyright issue.
 * Your removals of the further reading citations in the article shows a clear misunderstanding of WP:COPYLINK. A citation can NEVER be a copylink violation. Text that says Herbert Author, "Random Thoughts on Nothingness", IEEE Journal Vol 13 Number 2 pages 2-13 does not copy any original text, so it is not a copyright violation. Publishers want others to point to the works that they publish. Only the link/URL portion of such a citation can be a copylink violation. The cited works were all relevant to the article; you should only have deleted the URL parameters if you believed there were copylink violations. Removing the entire citation is WP:POINTy. I would have reverted the deletions if Lefèvre had not beat me to it. Furthermore, none of the links/URLs in the citations are apparent copylink violations. Most JOURNALs allow authors the right to republish the journal articles they authored on websites that the authors control. There's even a WP 'bot that looks for such free copies and inserts links to them in citation templates. That republication right only applies to the authors and websites under their control; it does not mean that somebody else can copy the journal article and publish it on their website. WP editors have a duty to ask whether a copy of an article on a website does not violate the copyright. For many significant journal articles, one can search and find a copy of it somewhere on the Internet. Unfortunately, many of those copies are copyright violations. A professor might post a copy of a significant paper on a course website for the use of his class; making that copy available to the general public is a copyright violation. There is not a similar, common, republication right for non-journal articles such as books and reports. If I write a book, the publisher usually does not let me post a PDF of that book on my website. If a free PDF were available, then few people would buy the book.
 * Glrx (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Glrx (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The ones in Further reading that I deleted have just as clear a copyright notice as the draft IEEE 754. (Did you look at them?) It seems that David Hough, the chair and presumably more or less the author, has a web site under his control. You say: WP editors have a duty to ask whether a copy of an article on a website does not violate the copyright. I asked. Even more, he replied.  (Many don't.)  I also asked Kahan, but he hasn't replied yet. I suppose I could ask for a signed, notarized statement saying that we are allowed to download them, but I don't think he would be too happy with that, and I don't know where I would put the statement. (It would be more fun to have one from Kahan, though.)   I suppose IEEE could sue David Hough for posting the drafts on a public web site, but they don't seem to have done that for many years now. Gah4 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I hadn't run into WP:POINT before, but it probably applies. I did check, though, that the pages have a clear copyright notice, just as clear as the drafts. As you note, they intend people to copy (view) them, yet copyright them, anyway, and make that clearly obvious. Lefèvre didn't think that I should ask for a signed, notarized statement. Gah4 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Where are we on this one? I still didn't hear from Kahan, who seems to be retired and rarely answering email. Gah4 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you have a copy of the legal agreement between IEEE and 754WG? It seems from your posts and edits, that you know the legal status of various documents from 754WG. Gah4 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This issue was resolved for WP almost nine years ago. The legal status is clear on the face of the draft with the IEEE copyright statement, something that you apparently have not bothered to read or for reasons that are beyond me choose to ignore. The 754WG does not have permission to publish its drafts to the general public. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath: Maybe it is unrelated, but after all the communication with the principals, the ungated drafts were removed from the website. Glrx (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Richard F. Lyon
I'm not saying I disagree with the fact that the picture of Richard F. Lyon shouldn't include a harp, but the picture of the person really is not particularly flattering nor is it up to date, being from 2007. The picture of him and his harp is much newer. For now, I have added a caption to the photo stating the age of the photo. -- Rockstone   talk to me!   19:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The original image isn't great, but it does a much better job of showing the subject matter.
 * The harp pix is much inferior. I do not see recent as a requirement. The harp is a distraction and unrelated to Lyon's work; it is not like a picture of Richard Feynman and his Feynman diagram-decorated van. Lyon also is a very small percentage of the photo; much of his face is dark, his head is tilted forward, and his glasses are covering part of his eyes.
 * Glrx (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the picture isn't good, but I do think the picture of him with the harp has him looking better (i.e., he looks much healthier and it's a much more flattering picture). Maybe a better solution is to ping him and ask him to take a new portrait if he wants it. See above. --  Rockstone   talk to me!   02:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary-precision arithmetic
Hi there, please share your view on this topic at Talk:Arbitrary-precision_arithmetic. Thank you! --Cerotidinon (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Glrx (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

About the Bubble sort page
Hello Glrx,

I noticed that you reverted two times my edits on Bubble sort, however, I made them in a honest manner and I think they are worth be included in Wikipedia. That is why I created a section on Talk:Bubble_sort to discuss that issue. Thus, I would like to friendly invite you to visit that section and add your comments there.

Thank you very much and have a good day.

--Lp.vitor (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Will comment there. Glrx (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Glrx

Thank you for creating Bubble octant.

User:Boleyn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Boleyn (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate messages
Please address previous concerns before adding duplicate edits (with identical issues). Nemo 07:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edit summary
I see you reverted an edit on the grounds of "No indication that Chinese or Japanese authors have ties to New Zealand". This may sound racist to some: it might be interpreted as stating that scholars of certain ethnicities are not supposed or expected to be hired by an institution in New Zealand. I suggest that you retract that statement.

It was also very easy to verify that the author does indeed work for that institutional repository's parent entity: https://canterbury.ac.nz/engineering/contact-us/people/rajesh-dhakal.html. I therefore ask that you avoid such careless edits in the future, and revert your revert. Nemo 07:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge Sort psuedocode was rewritten by anonymous user, I reverted the article back to it's prior state.
The anonymous user's rewritten pseudocode was needlessly complex. It took a few undo operations, but I restored the article back to it's prior state. I suggested that user get a proper Wiki account. Rcgldr (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

looking for a favor
Since you're on the history of Nicolle Wallace, there are some request for comments on her talk page. Thought you might want to weigh in when you have time. The top one is at: Talk:Nicolle_Wallace. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Dao or Island?
I just realized that I undid a page move that you made back in 2019 concerning Niushan Island. I have added new maps and links on the page. Please let me know what you think of the page name now. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Trami swept the town of Suao in Pingtan county at around 1 am and then made landfall in the neighboring city of Fuqing, packing winds of up to 126 km per hour at its center, and with maximum winds of 163.4 km per hour recorded on Niushan Island of Pingtan." I would challenge you to give culturally specific examples. In China and Taiwan geography, the sources usually use the term 'island' in the names for islands. China is not Japan or New York. According to conventional practice, no one in their right mind would translate this as 'Cow Mountain Island' (also, as I am coming to understand it, 山 doesn't really mean mountain here- on the Fujian/Fukien coast, most of the islands are call 山), but the translation "Niushan Island" has been used officially and the practice of adding 'island' to the names of islands is common. (see page 5 ) Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * Dao.
 * The name "Niushan Island" is a poor mix of Anglicized Chinese and English. It should be either "Niushan Dao" or "Turnabout Island": that is, use one language or the other but do not mix the two.
 * The rock is either Lot's Wife or "Sōfu Gan" but not "Sōfu Island".
 * The article for Japanese Iwo Jima is not "Iwo Island".
 * The article for Japanese Iejima is not "Ie Island".
 * The article for Japanese Hiroshima is not "Hiro Island" or "Broad Island" or "Hiro Island City".
 * The German article is New York City and not "New York Stadt".
 * The Germans refer to the US as "United States" or "Vereinigten Staaten" but I doubt they use "United Staaten".
 * There are many wiki articles that mix languages to get names such as "Niushan Island", but that practice seems poor. A whole transliteration would be "Cow Mountain Island". If there is not an entirely English name, then use the Anglicized Chinese (or other language) without transliterating any part. I do not know why wiki articles went that way; it is not the common method from the (20th-century) texts that I've seen.
 * The article has several references. In English texts, the island is usually "Turnabout Island". The 1953 definition of the East China Sea says "Kiushan Tao (Turnabout Island)". The Islands in the article's 1954 map (File:Txu-oclc-10552568-ng50-12.jpg) use "Tao" rather than the English "Island". For example, it is Haitan Tao rather than Haitan Island. Names, especially uncommon ones, should not have fractured transliterations.
 * Glrx (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But the name used comes straight from the China Daily's usage. It's linked. "Meanwhile, Niushan Island, in the east of Pingtan, recorded wind speeds of up to 45.1 meters per second (14th grade)."
 * But the name used comes straight from the China Daily's usage. It's linked. "Meanwhile, Niushan Island, in the east of Pingtan, recorded wind speeds of up to 45.1 meters per second (14th grade)."
 * A different Niushan Island. These are all works created by organizations owned by the CPC. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar has 36 results for Niushan Island, but 0 results for Niushan Dao. There are eight results for "Niushandao", but given the China Daily's consistent usage of "Niushan Island", I don't see a strong case for Niushan Dao in the context of actual usage. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.geonames.org/1799253/niushan-dao.html Yes.
 * https://www.geonames.org/1799253/niushan-island.html &rarr; Niushan Dao.
 * Searching for "Niushan Dao" without also searching for "Kiushan Tao" would ignore earlier usage.
 * I'm not a fan of google hits, but...
 * Google hits for "Niushan Dao": 5330
 * Google hits for "Niushan Island": 694
 * Google hits for "Kiushan Tao": 339
 * Google hits for "Kiushan Island": 0
 * Obscure journal articles by Chinese authors are not a compelling sources for English usage.
 * You cited documents issued by the Chinese government, but those documents are not issued in English but rather translated by others &mdash; for example, an organization based in China (country code 86).
 * http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?cgid=5e26c67cf2834e75bdfb&lib=law
 * You added the 1953 map from the Army Map Service, and it did not use island. It is an English-speaking organization in the US.
 * The usual practice is to not translate names. Sometimes Wien becomes Vienna, but we usually leave names alone. Just like the 1953 map left them alone (save for phonetic alphabet conversion). We say Bejing; we do not say Be City or North Capital City.
 * Glrx (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5330 Google hits for Niushan Dao means it's a variant, which it is. Those are all obscure unused databases and include no fully formed English language sentences of science or journalism. Niushan Dao is a variant name used by database junkies who know nothing about the island or where it is.
 * The 36 of the obscure papers to prove that English language users call the island Niushan Island when they refer to it in a sentence. The China Daily, mouthpiece of the CPC, puts out coherent English language sentences all the time in its reporting. I've got years of China Daily pages with this usage, and you've got? Databasum obscurium
 * The AMS map from the 50's labels it 'Niu Shan (Turnabout Island)', so I just told the readers what to look for on the map. (Note: 50's is the 100% correct usage in dialectal English, not 50s) Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The AMS map from the 50's labels it 'Niu Shan (Turnabout Island)', so I just told the readers what to look for on the map. (Note: 50's is the 100% correct usage in dialectal English, not 50s) Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Dao or Island?
I just realized that I undid a page move that you made back in 2019 concerning Niushan Island. I have added new maps and links on the page. Please let me know what you think of the page name now. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Trami swept the town of Suao in Pingtan county at around 1 am and then made landfall in the neighboring city of Fuqing, packing winds of up to 126 km per hour at its center, and with maximum winds of 163.4 km per hour recorded on Niushan Island of Pingtan." I would challenge you to give culturally specific examples. In China and Taiwan geography, the sources usually use the term 'island' in the names for islands. China is not Japan or New York. According to conventional practice, no one in their right mind would translate this as 'Cow Mountain Island' (also, as I am coming to understand it, 山 doesn't really mean mountain here- on the Fujian/Fukien coast, most of the islands are call 山), but the translation "Niushan Island" has been used officially and the practice of adding 'island' to the names of islands is common. (see page 5 ) Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * Dao.
 * The name "Niushan Island" is a poor mix of Anglicized Chinese and English. It should be either "Niushan Dao" or "Turnabout Island": that is, use one language or the other but do not mix the two.
 * The rock is either Lot's Wife or "Sōfu Gan" but not "Sōfu Island".
 * The article for Japanese Iwo Jima is not "Iwo Island".
 * The article for Japanese Iejima is not "Ie Island".
 * The article for Japanese Hiroshima is not "Hiro Island" or "Broad Island" or "Hiro Island City".
 * The German article is New York City and not "New York Stadt".
 * The Germans refer to the US as "United States" or "Vereinigten Staaten" but I doubt they use "United Staaten".
 * There are many wiki articles that mix languages to get names such as "Niushan Island", but that practice seems poor. A whole transliteration would be "Cow Mountain Island". If there is not an entirely English name, then use the Anglicized Chinese (or other language) without transliterating any part. I do not know why wiki articles went that way; it is not the common method from the (20th-century) texts that I've seen.
 * The article has several references. In English texts, the island is usually "Turnabout Island". The 1953 definition of the East China Sea says "Kiushan Tao (Turnabout Island)". The Islands in the article's 1954 map (File:Txu-oclc-10552568-ng50-12.jpg) use "Tao" rather than the English "Island". For example, it is Haitan Tao rather than Haitan Island. Names, especially uncommon ones, should not have fractured transliterations.
 * Glrx (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But the name used comes straight from the China Daily's usage. It's linked. "Meanwhile, Niushan Island, in the east of Pingtan, recorded wind speeds of up to 45.1 meters per second (14th grade)."
 * But the name used comes straight from the China Daily's usage. It's linked. "Meanwhile, Niushan Island, in the east of Pingtan, recorded wind speeds of up to 45.1 meters per second (14th grade)."
 * A different Niushan Island. These are all works created by organizations owned by the CPC. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar has 36 results for Niushan Island, but 0 results for Niushan Dao. There are eight results for "Niushandao", but given the China Daily's consistent usage of "Niushan Island", I don't see a strong case for Niushan Dao in the context of actual usage. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * https://www.geonames.org/1799253/niushan-dao.html Yes.
 * https://www.geonames.org/1799253/niushan-island.html &rarr; Niushan Dao.
 * Searching for "Niushan Dao" without also searching for "Kiushan Tao" would ignore earlier usage.
 * I'm not a fan of google hits, but...
 * Google hits for "Niushan Dao": 5330
 * Google hits for "Niushan Island": 694
 * Google hits for "Kiushan Tao": 339
 * Google hits for "Kiushan Island": 0
 * Obscure journal articles by Chinese authors are not a compelling sources for English usage.
 * You cited documents issued by the Chinese government, but those documents are not issued in English but rather translated by others &mdash; for example, an organization based in China (country code 86).
 * http://en.pkulaw.cn/display.aspx?cgid=5e26c67cf2834e75bdfb&lib=law
 * You added the 1953 map from the Army Map Service, and it did not use island. It is an English-speaking organization in the US.
 * The usual practice is to not translate names. Sometimes Wien becomes Vienna, but we usually leave names alone. Just like the 1953 map left them alone (save for phonetic alphabet conversion). We say Bejing; we do not say Be City or North Capital City.
 * Glrx (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 5330 Google hits for Niushan Dao means it's a variant, which it is. Those are all obscure unused databases and include no fully formed English language sentences of science or journalism. Niushan Dao is a variant name used by database junkies who know nothing about the island or where it is.
 * The 36 of the obscure papers to prove that English language users call the island Niushan Island when they refer to it in a sentence. The China Daily, mouthpiece of the CPC, puts out coherent English language sentences all the time in its reporting. I've got years of China Daily pages with this usage, and you've got? Databasum obscurium
 * The AMS map from the 50's labels it 'Niu Shan (Turnabout Island)', so I just told the readers what to look for on the map. (Note: 50's is the 100% correct usage in dialectal English, not 50s) Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The AMS map from the 50's labels it 'Niu Shan (Turnabout Island)', so I just told the readers what to look for on the map. (Note: 50's is the 100% correct usage in dialectal English, not 50s) Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)