User talk:Opolito

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Opolito! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Rtkat3 (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Queensland loco page
I double checked all the "Number in Class" columns and only the "A12 (small) class" was wrong (3 instead of 1). The "Classification" heading still needs a fix, but it seems to be much better than before. MountVic127 (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the state you left the table in when I commented on your talk page. Note that virtually every entry that you added to the "Number in Class" column is wrong. You had 13 for the A10 Avonside class, instead of 4; 4 for the A10 Nielsons instead of 13, 3 for the B11s instead of 4 etc. Please don't claim that only one was wrong when the evidence is right there that they almost all were wrong. Opolito (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Date extinct column?
What about a "Date Extinct" column to compliment the existing "Date Built" column? MountVic127 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * you should focus on completing the "Number in Class" column first. "Date extinct" isn't the right title, since locomotives don't go extinct and some of the class members still exist. You could maybe add a "Disposition" column, but it would make that table too wide and it is complex to include the details of what happened to a class of locomotives. Overall, I wouldn't recommend trying to shoehorn that information into the table. Readers can go to the individual class articles to see what happened to each class. Opolito (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Granite Rock Co. 10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aromas. 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) 18:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Chinatown (1974 film)
I don't understand why you reverted my edit on Chinatown to add Penthouse as one of the companies involved. The end credits of the movie literally say "A Paramount - Penthouse Presentation." Penthouse was given equal billing to the home studio in the credits. You can see the credit at 4:50 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsKFwwAPJqE Jamesluckard (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the source you gave did not say that. It said that Bob Guccione invested in the movie. That's different from Penthouse producing the movie. If you have a reliable source for your claim then you can add it to the article. Opolito (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The end credits of the movie are the best and most reliable, definitive source. They say the film was jointly made by Paramount and Penthouse. I don't understand why there would be a question about that. Jamesluckard (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't use the end credits as your source. You used a Vanity Fair article which only says that Guccione invested in the movie: . Opolito (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no way to cite the end credits, and there is no usual expectation to do so. The article was an additional source, but I provided a solution in the Chinatown Talk page that I think will fix everything. :) Jamesluckard (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Gas engine edits

 * Thank you for your review and your thoroughness! I have checked the guidelines again, and it seems that the source I had added to the article on gas engines was just what is needed for Wikipedia – a branch expert discussing a relevant topic in a non-promotional way. Have I misinterpreted this? If so, please tell me – otherwise it would be great if you could take another look at my source and re-add it if it seems suitable for you, as the article is in need of more citations.
 * Thank you in advance!

GraBenj (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a lousy link and a poor section. It misleads more than it informs.
 * That section is a (very) simplistic description of a four-stroke cycle. Which TBH is barely adequate for that.
 * The main problem with it is that this is an article on gas engines, not four-stroke engines, or even four-stroke gas engines. It implies that all gas engines are four strokes (they're not). It implies that all gas engines use compression (The first ones didn't, which is why they pre-dated the Otto engine. Otto knew that compression would aid efficiency and give him a lightweight engine, but it also started to need complicated fuels, like petrol).
 * As a source, its main problem is that it's a commercial parts retailer trying to bask in some reflected glory by 'explaining' gas engines by pasting up some simplistic explanation they found somewhere, probably online and increasingly AI-generated. That is not what a WP:RS looks like. As a simple example, "Carl Benz, the founder of Mercedes Benz and MWM, is inevitably credited with inventing the now established internal combustion engine." is cringe-worthy. He invented the car (a petrol engine in a locomobile chassis). He did not invent its engine. Nor did he found M-B (although just who founded M-B, D-B and Daimler is its own special tarpit).
 * What you're trying to do here is a good idea, but it needs to be better written and it needs better sourcing. Nor does it really need to explain the operating cycle. I learned 'suck, squeeze, bang, blow' as a kid and it wasn't until I read Ricardo decades later that I really understood anything and realised what a completely pointless and misleading cliche that hackneyed explanation is. What it mostly needs to explain is "gas engines are just like big IC engines, except that they're different in the following ways:". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)