User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2010/February

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of unit conversions
Were your recent removals based on a concensus result that I missed somewhere? For most of the world, "inch" and "pound" have very little meaning, hence the guideline at MOS:CONVERSIONS. LeadSongDog come howl  07:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In British ordnance use, the term "pounder" was the gun's name rather than an exact measurement of the weight of shell. 12 pounders and 13 pounders fired shells weighing 12.5 pounds, 15 pounders fired shells weighing 14 pounds. Likewise 2 pounder, 3 pounder and 6 pounder, the names were just convenient designations. Etc. To convert the gun's name into literal metric is a form of rewriting history which is academically incorrect and risks giving an incoorect impression to the casual reader. A classic example is folks who blindly convert the 3-inch Stokes mortar to a 76.2 mm mortar without knowing that the bore was actually 81.2 mm - 3-inch was just a name, as with the "4 inch" version. Folks who want the gun's actual specifications will follow the link and discover these details. Rifle and pistol bullet designations are often similarly just convenient names rather than exact measurements. Folks who blindly convert 18 inch torpedo to 460 mm, 457 mm etc also demonstrate that they have no knowledge of the subject matter itself - an acquintance with the subject matter is necessary before folks embark on wholesale metrification to avoid reducing the articles to bubble-gum wrapper standard. We have had this discussion before elsewhere and the consensus was that Brit ordnance designations are not to be converted literally to metric in such cases. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that editors in good faith put those conversions in. If there's concensus against using them that way they should be able to see at least a link to the discussion, if not to a project guideline. LeadSongDog come howl  08:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear you. Can you suggest how we incorporate such an issue into guidelines and make it accessible to goodfaith contributors ? I certainly don't want to turn away genuine contributors by reverting what to them was an honest contribution - but at the same time I don't want to see history trivialised by wholesale insertion of anachronisms. I try to make it clear in articles I help build when the name is a convenient designation rather than a calibre or spec. E.g in the QF 4.7 inch gun articles I was at pains to point out that this calibre originated from Elswick export orders for 120-mm guns, and 4.7 inch was just a convenient name for the British military to use. Using convert with 4.7 inches gives 119 mm, which is an absurdity which misses the point about the origins of the calibre with metric navies. A more correct representation has to be hardcoded as 4.7-inch (120-mm), which requires acquaintance with the subject matter. Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This might be a case where the use of poison quotes is appropriate to indicate that the name is misleading, e.g. for the QF "4.7 inch" (120 mm) gun. Similar issues come up on engine displacements (e.g. for motorcycles) which are often quoted by makers in nominal "cc"s that don't bear very close resemblance to the real engine geometry. Some background is available at these and these discussions. There may be similar ones at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. LeadSongDog come howl  21:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've contacted all the people I'm aware of who contribute to military ordnance-related wikipedia articles to get their opinions on this matter - I'm aware I'm just one opinion among possibly several. I remember reaching a consensus with various other enthusiasts possibly 2 years ago, but it was informal... I think we need to incorporate an agreed standard into the MOS so newbies have some guideline and I can stop being an old grouch. I would suggest that the starting point could be the article being linked to : if the article says it's a 12-inch (305-mm) gun or 4.7-inch (120-mm), then that's what the article linking to it should say. That places the onus on the article writer to follow guidelines, and to explain why the ordnance name is possibly misleading and hence cannot be literally converted, not the person just creating the link. regards, Rod
 * I suppose that's a good starting point, though we shouldn't presume there is an article for every subject identified by a misnomer. I'd suggest you read through the archived discussions linked above, then propose a paragraph for discussion at one talk page, while the other talk page should see a notification of the discussion. I'm sure my talk page isn't the best place for the discussion.LeadSongDog come howl  00:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha
Thanks for catching that - funny. 7 06:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bamahane
Done. —Ynhockey (Talk) 02:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on User talk:67.190.53.226 page
Thanks. But I think it's fairly polite, even if a bit assertive. Nightscream (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot
Hey, thanks for chiming in at the User:Citation bot/bugs page! It's a real help to have comments addressed before I set to work on them - I really appreciate your input! And hopefully I can repay the favour by fixing a few bugs today (-:

Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  17:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure you earned some help for all the work the bot has saved others ;-) Sure hope it's feeling better soon. User:LeadSongDog  come howl  02:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you
Glad to see a new set of eyes at the article, especially on the technical side. Fair disclosure here: my formal training is in writing and history. Father was a NASA scientist--a real one, not the kind who manages prototype projects at a university. Strangely enough, the Viking landers at Mars were his first project. ;) So I've caught the obvious stuff (gee whiz, electrolysis!) but my skills are better suited to catching misplaced apostrophes than kilowatts.  Cheers,  Durova  412 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The basic technical principles are sound enough, but the economics hinge on technical execution and customer education. If they've got a tech-savy customer base that can use the waste heat, need high reliability power backup, supply fuel during blackouts, generate power during peak hours, and buy power during off-peak hours they may make a go of it when the subsidies end. Such niche markets have some resemblance to cellular networks, gas pipeline operators, and datacentres. Maybe not residential usage. But it's not clear what this company can bring that their competition (Kyocera, Hydrogenics, et al.) can't bring. User:LeadSongDog come howl  22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the Wired estimate is right Bloom is rolling out production for a type of technology that's historically prone to breakage based upon a patent they were awarded last year. The cost effectiveness of that technology is going to depend on its reliability and durability. They've gotten stable contraction and expansion rates, but in real field conditions will those rates remain stable? Or will the units become temperamental before they're in use long enough to cover production costs? With $400 million in venture capital and an $85 million a year burn rate, that's a steep gamble. This company is headed by a Ph.D. who doesn't have any experience in scaling up mass production. They've got one chance to do it right or they'll go the way of Pets.com. Durova  412 22:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, one thing they're doing right is bundling in an annual maintenance service. That means that if they have to swap out the stacks or the reformer to keep reliability up they can do it pretty readily. The rest should be easy to make robust: fuel tanks, low voltage DC/AC inverters, etc are pretty common these days. The main technical problem areas that they have to have solutions for are system efficiency, trace contaminants from the fuel and idiotproofing. But they aren't saying much about any of those that can be verified. They do seem to have a good handle on spindoctoring though.User:LeadSongDog come howl  22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Too good; did you see the Wikipedia article history? The page came up at ANI as a possible astroturf job.  Frankly I'm a whole lot more curious about their VP of production than whether they can get Arnold and Colin Powell on stage.  Too much razzle-dazzle.  Durova  412 22:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Stem cell
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Replied at your talk. User:LeadSongDog come howl  03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point. I had no idea that there was so much plagiarism in medical articles.  Remind me not to trust doctors who get their degrees by lifting chunks out of Wikipedia artciles or medical sites that reproduce Wiki comment and slap a copyright notice on!.  I shall continue the review later. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)